On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:12:11 +0200
Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:

quoted text
> 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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/