Hi Linus,
I think it's better that we defer some of the asynchronous boot stuff to
2.6.30 so that it can bake in -next for a bit. I would like to keep the
core infrastructure in place for 29, so that the various subsystem
patches etc can just use it in -next without generating dependencies in
the patch flow.
for both libata and the inode delete very simple things can be done to
fix them, but I would feel a lot more comfortable giving these a ride
in -next.
The following changes since commit
2150edc6c5cf00f7adb54538b9ea2a3e9cedca3f: Linus Torvalds (1):
Merge branch 'for_linus' of git://git.kernel.org/.../tytso/ext4
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arjan/linux-2.6-async-undo.git
master
Arjan van de Ven (3):
Revert "fastboot: Make libata initialization even more async"
Revert "fastboot: make the libata port scan asynchronous"
partial revert of asynchronous inode delete
drivers/ata/libata-core.c | 96
+++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
fs/inode.c | 19 +++------ 2 files changed, 51
insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> I think it's better that we defer some of the asynchronous boot stuff to
> 2.6.30 so that it can bake in -next for a bit. I would like to keep the
> core infrastructure in place for 29, so that the various subsystem
> patches etc can just use it in -next without generating dependencies in
> the patch flow.
>
> for both libata and the inode delete very simple things can be done to
> fix them, but I would feel a lot more comfortable giving these a ride
> in -next.
Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a "fastboot"
option and is disabled by default? At least that way the ATA people can
see the problem, and don't just forget about it, since we want it fixed.
Linus
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:42:34 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > I think it's better that we defer some of the asynchronous boot
> > stuff to 2.6.30 so that it can bake in -next for a bit. I would
> > like to keep the core infrastructure in place for 29, so that the
> > various subsystem patches etc can just use it in -next without
> > generating dependencies in the patch flow.
> >
> > for both libata and the inode delete very simple things can be done
> > to fix them, but I would feel a lot more comfortable giving these a
> > ride in -next.
>
> Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a
> "fastboot" option and is disabled by default? At least that way the
> ATA people can see the problem, and don't just forget about it, since
> we want it fixed.
ok sure, that's not hard. I'll get that going, hopefully before the end
of the day
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
> Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a "fastboot"
> option and is disabled by default? At least that way the ATA people can
> see the problem, and don't just forget about it, since we want it fixed.
Makes some sense - although the inode one should just take a hike at this
point. Can the fastboot option live under staging perhaps - its analogous
to staging drivers although clearly the code doesn't go there in this
case ?
The trouble otherwise is "fast boot" sounds like something good for
people to turn on, but right now it's the reverse.
Alan
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:22:01 +0000
Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a
> > "fastboot" option and is disabled by default? At least that way the
> > ATA people can see the problem, and don't just forget about it,
> > since we want it fixed.
>
> Makes some sense - although the inode one should just take a hike at
> this point. Can the fastboot option live under staging perhaps - its
> analogous to staging drivers although clearly the code doesn't go
> there in this case ?
>
> The trouble otherwise is "fast boot" sounds like something good for
> people to turn on, but right now it's the reverse.
I just coded it as a kernel command line option only
that's very much a "I know what I'm doing" kind of thng.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a "fastboot"
>> option and is disabled by default? At least that way the ATA people can
>> see the problem, and don't just forget about it, since we want it fixed.
>
> Makes some sense - although the inode one should just take a hike at this
> point. Can the fastboot option live under staging perhaps - its analogous
> to staging drivers although clearly the code doesn't go there in this
> case ?
>
> The trouble otherwise is "fast boot" sounds like something good for
> people to turn on, but right now it's the reverse.
isn't this like OPTIMIZE_INLINE?
David Lang
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:42:34 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > I think it's better that we defer some of the asynchronous boot
> > stuff to 2.6.30 so that it can bake in -next for a bit. I would
> > like to keep the core infrastructure in place for 29, so that the
> > various subsystem patches etc can just use it in -next without
> > generating dependencies in the patch flow.
> >
> > for both libata and the inode delete very simple things can be done
> > to fix them, but I would feel a lot more comfortable giving these a
> > ride in -next.
>
> Can we rather make this something that people can enable with a
> "fastboot" option and is disabled by default? At least that way the
> ATA people can see the problem, and don't just forget about it, since
> we want it fixed.
if you pull this you get the patch that removes the inode part for now,
and adds a "fastboot" kernel commandline option to enable the async
behavior.
The following changes since commit
7c51d57e9d7fbce89f79c41dc8da383101dbe9c6: Linus Torvalds (1):
Merge git://git.infradead.org/mtd-2.6
are available in the git repository at:
ssh://master.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arjan/linux-2.6-async-2
master
Arjan van de Ven (2):
partial revert of asynchronous inode delete
async: make async a command line option for now
fs/inode.c | 19 +++++++------------
kernel/async.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org