gt; > Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> > Cc: Boris Ostrovsky
> > Cc: David Vrabel
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin"
> > Cc: x...@kernel.org
> > Cc: "Roger Pau Monné"
> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov
> > C
: Dmitry Torokhov
---
drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c| 2 +-
drivers/scsi/sni_53c710.c | 2 +-
drivers/scsi/zalon.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c b/drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c
index 6d215e2fb46d..71b4b91d2215 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sgiwd93.c
On Friday, September 05, 2014 11:12:41 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 12:47:16AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Ah -- well without it the way we "find" drivers that need this new
> > "async feature" is by a bug report and folks saying their system can't
> > boot, or they say the
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:49:25AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Which problem are we talking about here though? It does solve the slow
> > device
> > stalling the rest if the kernel booti
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:12:17AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 09:44:05AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> Which problem are we talking about here though? It do
le should take to load. It may print
warnings and we'll work on fixing the drivers, but aborting boot just
because they feel like it took too long is not a good idea.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
driver-core: add driver async_probe support
From: Dmitry Torokhov
Some devices take a long time when in
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:45:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 9/5/2014 3:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >Hello, Dmitry.
> >
> >On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:10:03AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>I do not agree that it is actually user-visible change: generall
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 04:05:30PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 9/5/2014 3:52 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:45:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>On 9/5/2014 3:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >>>Hello, Dmitry.
> >>>
>
Hi Tejun,
On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:55:33AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Dmitry.
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:49:17PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:31:39AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 07:29:56AM +0900, Tejun
On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:46:23 PM James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > The thing is that we have to have dynamic mechanism to listen for
> > device attachments no matter what and such mechanism has been in place
> > for a long time at this p
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:59:25PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 16:01 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:46:23 PM James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 07:41 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 01:42:20PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
> >
> >> There are elements in common, but by and
> >> large the biggest headaches at least in large device number boots have
> >>
On Monday, September 22, 2014 09:49:06 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Thu 2014-09-11 13:23:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:59:25PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 16:01 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday,
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> +struct bus_type *bus)
> +{
> + struct module *mod;
> +
> + if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> + ret
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:34PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> On Mon 2014-09-22 13:23:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Monday, September 22, 2014 09:49:06 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Thu 2014-09-11 13:23:54, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 11
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:44:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> At times we may wish to express the desire to prefer to have
> a device driver probe asynchronously by default. We cannot
> simply enable all device drivers to do this without vetting
> th
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:20:46PM -0500, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> CONFIG_HOTPLUG is going away as an option so __devexit_p is no longer
> needed.
>
...
> drivers/scsi/vmw_pvscsi.c | 2 +-
For vmw_pvscsi:
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
To unsubscri
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 01:22:21PM -0500, Bill Pemberton wrote:
> CONFIG_HOTPLUG is going away as an option so __devinit is no longer
> needed.
>
...
> drivers/scsi/vmw_pvscsi.c | 6 +-
For vmw_pvscsi:
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
To unsubscri
Hi Yuanhan,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:57:53PM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> The current kfifo API take the kfifo size as input, while it rounds
> _down_ the size to power of 2 at __kfifo_alloc. This may introduce
> potential issue.
>
> Take the code at drivers/hid/hid-logitech-dj.c as example:
>
On 10/26/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> drivers/input/touchscreen/h3600_ts_input.c |4 ++--
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message
Hi James,
On 3/30/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 18:43 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Orphaning sysfs nodes on unregistration is a big step in this
> direction. With sysfs reference counting out of the picture,
> implementing 'disconnect immediate' interface onl
On 3/30/07, James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 09:15 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> If you want to manage lifetime rules independently you might want to
> not embed struct device into you subsystems objects but attach them
> via pointers and us
t not yet running) to complete before releasing the driver.
I am not sure if anyone actually needs this behavior and implementing it
in deadlock free way is nigh impossible, so
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov
>
> See also commit 765230b5f084 ("driver-core: add asynchronous probing
> support
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:18:46 +0900, Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, Dmitry, Mochel and James.
>
> I've been looking at sd code and found seemingly bogus 'if (!sdkp)'
> tests with /* this can happen */ comment. I've digged changelog and
> found out that this was to prevent oops which
On 8/18/05, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -500,9 +519,13 @@ int class_device_add(struct class_device
>}
>
>class_device_add_attrs(class_dev);
> - if (class_dev->dev)
> + if (class_dev->dev) {
> + class_name = make_class_name(class_dev);
>
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 16:43, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:50:19PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 8/18/05, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > @@ -500,9 +519,13 @@ int class_device_add(struct class_device
> > >}
> >
26 matches
Mail list logo
