On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear > > > synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls. > > > Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too? > > > > This seems to be addressing if what I meant by prepared, "ready", so let > > me address this as I do think its important. > > > > By async calls do you mean users of async_schedule()? I see it > > Yes. > > > also uses system_unbound_wq as well but I do not see anyone calling > > flush_workqueue(system_unbound_wq) on the kernel. We do use > > async_synchronize_full() on kernel_init() but that just waits. > > But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing > work items there and flush the workqueue right after > async_synchronize_full(). On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement for new userspace. Do you? > ... > > bus.enable_kern_async=1 would still also serve as a helper for the driver core > > to figure out if it should use async probe then on modules if prefer_async_probe > > was enabled. Let me know if you figure out a way to avoid it. > > Why do we need the choice at all? It always should, no? I'm OK to live with that, in that case I see no point to bus.enable_kern_async=1 at all. Luis -- 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
