lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized

* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:

> I don't think it makes sense to check for a possible bad
> initialization order at run time on every system when it is all
> decided at build time.
>
> A more efficient way to make sure developers do not introduce new
> calls to dmi_check_system() too early in the initialization sequence
> is to simply document the expected call order. That way, developers
> have a chance to get it right immediately, without having to
> test-boot their kernel, wonder why it does not work, and parse the
> kernel logs for a warning message. And we get rid of the run-time
> performance penalty as a nice side effect.

Huh? Initialization ordering requirements are very opaque, and by removing the
debug check any such bugs are actively hidden. How is documentation supposed to
uncover such bugs once they happen?

So NAK.

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-23 12:51    [W:0.046 / U:1.740 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site