On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 05:15:37PM -0700, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 03:34:06PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > 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"). > > 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.
We also need to skew those percentages by the market penetration of those
particular devices, and by the relative rate at which people will try to
use Linux with them.
For example, the Clie users are pretty commonly trying to use their device
with Linux....
> 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.
True, to a modern processor. But remember that many of these devices are
just a half-step removed from a midrange microcontroller... to many of
these devices 100ms is not that much time.
> > 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'm guessing there's a way to easily link the module param to a boot
param....
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
You are needink to look more evil. You likink very strong coffee?
-- Pitr to Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 10/16/1998
pgpjqDP5RI8Rs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
