lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] fastboot tree for v2.6.28

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> > You can try to convince me otherwise, but I really do think this
> > patch is fundamentally the wrong approach.
>
> there's an angle here which I would like to bring up. There is a
> fundamental difference between a spider functionality like USB, and
> "leaf drivers". Yes USB should do it right, it's drivers are
> effectively a midlayer. (and again, pull gregkh's tree and you'll get
> that; although even with that there's a noticeable amount of time
> spent there).
>
> For leaf drivers, it's a matter of where you want to push the
> functionality. With leaf drivers I mean things like the ACPI battery
> driver (or other ACPI drivers), but also various PCI drivers that
> don't have or are elaborate subsystems or boot dependencies. We could
> make all their probing functions async in each driver, or we could
> provide the most simple interface as is done in this case, they just
> change how they declare their initcall. (I'll grant you that we could
> also do a pci_register_device_async() like of helper, but that's just
> solving part of the same problem)
>
> Personally for leaf drivers, I think the initcall-level approach is
> much less error prone.

i'd like to inject my first-hand testing experience with your patches:

When i saw your patches then initially my impression was "oh my, this
will break a ton of stuff", so i asked you to: make it default-off
(against Andrew's suggestion to just remove the config and make it a
compulsory feature), to add various mechanisms to disable and isolate
it, should it break something - which i expected to be a near certainty.

But i was wrong. We had only a single bug in fastboot-v1 three months
ago which i bisected back to this series, and you fixed that quickly.
And CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y is definitely one of the popular features that
testers enable and there's all sorts of weird systems that are being
tested with tip/master.

So tip/fastboot has certainly been a problem free topic in its 3 months
of lifetime - and it got propagated to linux-next early on as well.

Our -tip testsystems boot with CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y about 50% of the time,
once every couple of minutes on this test-system:

config-Fri_Oct_10_23_06_21_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_07_54_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_14_08_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_15_54_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_21_37_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_22_56_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y
config-Fri_Oct_10_23_27_14_CEST_2008.good:CONFIG_FASTBOOT=y

i checked the logs, just yesterday that meant 354 fastboot-enabled
bootups on just that single test-system. So while i fully expected
fragility from this topic, neither our testing nor our testers saw
fragility in practice.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-11 09:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site