Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:21:23 -0700 | | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 5/3] fastboot: sync the async execution before late_initcall and move level 6s (sync) first |
| |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:12:11 +0200 Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:
> On 29-07-08 23:04, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:00:29 +0200 > >> Isn't this a bit confusing? All the other sync levels are directly > >> after their respective levels. I can see why you want another level > >> now, but shouldn't that mean late_initcall now wants to be 8, > >> device_initcall 7 and your new 6s just 6 (device_core_initcall or > >> something...)? > >> > > > > yeah it is.. but nobody is using them > > > > I'll make a note to clean this up > > > > (by removing the unused ones) > > Fair enough. By the way: > > > @@ -775,6 +776,11 @@ static void __init do_initcalls(void) > > } > > if (phase == 1 && call >= __async_initcall_end) > > phase = 2; > > + if (phase == 2 && call >= __device_initcall_end) { > > + phase = 3; > > + /* make sure all async work is done before > > level 7 */ > > + flush_workqueue(async_init_wq); > > + } > > if (phase != 1) > > do_one_initcall(*call); > > After this patch, there are now 2 flush_workqueue(async_init_wq) > calls in do_initcalls. Should the other one remain as well?
yes because if you don't have any level 7's then you won't hit this condition... you need the second one.
flush_workqueue is cheap for the nothing-in-there case.
-- 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
|  |