![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:23:31 +0200 Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote: > Yes, I see. Unfortunately, WITH your patches, driver_probe_done() > would also no longer be safe when run from a late_initcall() it would > appear. true for now (but see below) > I have the sneaking suspicion that this is a bit of a fundamental > issue. Turning some of the driver level (6) async basicaly removes > the ordering between drivers and late_initcall (level 7). I was hoping to not need this ordering. > > I trust it will completely and utterly destroy the point of this > patch to flush level 6a before starting level 7? Thankfully it doesn't destroy it, the reason for this is that level 6 itself tends to take long enough to get benefits. It's just that if we can get both 6 and 7 it's nicer. But if we end up needing to sync, so be it. Note: syncing on a driver_probe_done() from level 7 is not going to be pretty (think "multi-second extra boot time). Part of me wants to only sync level 6a from the first driver_probe_done() so that only people who already pay these extra seconds suffer this one as well ;-) (it means that I'll just disable suspend-to-disk on my systems though) -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-07-20 13:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||