From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
> In fact, there is nothing wrong with having *both* a synchronous part, and > an async part: > > .probe = mydriver_setup, > .probe_async = mydriver_spin_up_and_probe_devices, ... > Hmm? Would something like this work? I dunno, but it seems a hell of a lot > safer and more capable than the aborted PCI multithreaded probing that was > an "all or nothing" approach. I definitely agree that we need a transitonary approach to this. Although I kind of preferred the idea you mentioned where the device could launch the asynchronous probe and just return from the normal ->probe() immediately. This might get tricky if the callers do some kind of reference counting or other resource management based upon the ->probe() return value since it wouldn't know what happened to the launched asynchronous probe when it returns from ->probe(). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
