On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > incidentally, i've been talking to Arjan about this recently in
> > context of the CONFIG_FASTBOOT feature. Because, as a side-effect,
> > in the long run, once the dependencies between initcalls fan out in
> > a more natural way, with explicit initcall ordering we'll also be
> > able to boot a bit faster and a bit more parallel.
> 
> Hell no.
> 
> We do not want any implicit parallelism in the initcalls. That way
> lies madness.
> 
> The probe functions that explicitly know that they are slow (like USB 
> detection and/or other individual drivers that have timeouts) should
> put themselves in the background. We should _not_ use the dependency
> chain to do so automatically, because for most cases drivers are
> totally independent, but we still want a _reliable_  and _repeatable_
> ordering.
> 
> Which means that I will not accept stuff that makes for a parallel
> bootup as a general initcall notion. I want things like network
> devices to show up in the same order for the same kernel, thank you
> very much - even if there is absolutely _zero_ ordering constraints
> between two independent network drivers.

just to avoid any confusion; the current -fastboot tree does not do
this parallel stuff. At all.
(so please don't judge it as doing that)


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/