On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 11:01:32AM -0700, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 09:34:04AM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > Lots of work? Tragic. But that's what you get when you're the > > > unusual_devs.h guy. Handle it as you see best, but the goal is to make > > > unusual_devs.h as small as possible. > > > > Woah there buddy! I'm okay with the work... I don't recall saying "oh, > > that's gonna take too much work" - I was just discussing the > > logistics. > > Sorry. I'm just a little behind in life. This past weekend was my first > break in 26 consecutive days of work. I guess I'm getting a little bit > punchy.
No worries. I do that a lot. =) Me after 2 or 3 consecutive 80-hour work weeks is not fun to be around. > I'm hesitant to "minimize" this much. > > I want a value that will help many of the FIX_INQUIRY devices we have. I > want to cut down on people having to add entries to unusual_devs.h in the > general case. I want to improve the experience of most people (i.e. "my > device Just Works(tm) out of the box with Linux"). Absolutely. Let me elaborate a little more, because I don't think I was very clear. First and foremost I support the idea of the delay. The Just Works is something I see as important to Linux. But I also don't accept anything without weight the consequences. You've been doing this a lot longer than I have, and I respect your opinion. I'm simply discussing here. As far as the delay, here's my opininon: 1. If 100ms delay takes care of 99% of devices and a 5 second delay takes care of 99.1% of devices, I _strongly_ am in support for the 100ms 2. If 5s handles 70% of devices and 4 seconds handles 30% of devices, we need 5 second -- and I'd say lets investigate 6 or 7 seconds. In other words, we want that intersection of smallest delay for greatest accomplishment. Devices work a lot quicker than humans - in _most_ cases. I have a phone that I *have* to specify a sleep(4) in the write code of multisync in order for it to work. sleep(3) doesn't work. But that's an *exception* to the rule. In most cases 100ms is a decent chunk of time to a modern electronic device. 1 second is usually a LOT of time. Whenever you start introducing arbitrary delays in the kernel, IMO it needs to be done carefully, minimally, and precisely. > Given that this 5 seconds runs concurrently with other things, I don't see > it as being a big delay at boot. Agreed. Not huge. But still not something to just forget about. > Also, given that people who really want to squeeze for the last few seconds > out of boot can easily make the less-than-one-line change to alter the > default delay (or just change it via sysfs from their initrd before they > load the HCD), I don't see a compelling reason to lower it. Hmm. Perhaps this would be a good place for a boot param? I've always viewed initrds as pretty ugly. > I see the idea here to improve life greatly for many people at a small cost > to few people (those who care about those few seconds). Since those few > people can perfectly easily squeeze those seconds out at either > compile-time or runtime, there just isn't a downside that I really see. No. I agree, the delay idea (assuming it works for a large portion of devices) is a GOOD thing. I'd hate to use a 5 second delay though if 1 second does the same amount of good though. Ya know? -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freeware and Technical Pages Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
