Re: [PATCH 06/18] compat: backport ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE()

From: Luis R. Rodriguez
Date: Wed Apr 10 2013 - 15:20:09 EST

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 10:26 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > I guess I'd have to review the async API,
>> Yeap, reviewing the commit noted would help too.
> Yeah ... :)
>> > What's the use of just this when you don't have things like
>> > async_schedule_domain() and async_synchronize_full_domain(), regulator
>> > stuff wouldn't compile I think?
>> You mean is not having the full asynch that deals with all registered
>> domains likely to have an issue on the useres of
>> async_synchronize_full_domain() ? Lets better ask Dan.
> I don't know. However it seems that in order to have an ASYNC_DOMAIN()
> or ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE() you always need to *do* something with it,
> so for that you'd also need the functions async_schedule_domain() and
> async_synchronize_full_domain() or similar, at least, no?
> The point here seems to be making boot faster by starting a bunch of
> async probing inside a domain, and then you wait for the entire domain,
> so everything that's in that domain can be done in parallel.
> Say for example you have 20 SCSI drives. If you look at them serially
> then you'd waste much time waiting for the drives. The point here
> appears to be that you create a domain (using this macro), then add all
> the drives to the domain and then wait for the domain to finish.
> However, it seems entirely pointless to backport just a small part of
> the API?

Oh I agree don't get me wrong, however porting kernel/async.c seems
like a rather separate effort worth considering. As-is though I have
not seen any negative impact though to keep older subsystems from
compiling, ie its a no-op for older kernels as I see it.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at