Hey, James. On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 12:35:46PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > I don't have very strong views on this one. However, I've got to say > from a systems point of view that if the desire is to flag when the > module is having problems, probing and initializing synchronously in a > thread spawned by init which the init process can watchdog and thus can > flash up warning messages seems to be more straightforwards than an > elaborate asynchronous mechanism with completion signalling which > achieves the same thing in a more complicated (and thus bug prone) > fashion. We no longer report back error on probe failure on module load. It used to make sense to indicate error for module load on probe failure when the hardware was a lot simpler and drivers did their own device enumeration. With the current bus / device setup, it doesn't make any sense and driver core silently suppresses all probe failures. There's nothing the probing thread can monitor anymore. In that sense, we already separated out device probing from module loading simply because the hardware reality mandated it and we have dynamic mechanisms to listen for device probes exactly for the same reason, so I think it makes sense to separate out the waiting too, at least in the long term. In a modern dynamic setup, the waits are essentially arbitrary and doesn't buy us anything. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
