Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1737992

Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized

Show all headers | View raw

* 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

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> - 2017-09-18 10:10 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-09-23 13:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> - 2017-09-23 17:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-09-24 11:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> - 2017-09-25 11:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-25 11:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi_scan: Drop dmi_initialized Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-09-25 11:30 +0200

csiph-web