Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

2009-04-20 Thread Suresh Jayaraman
Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:09 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: >> Hi Trond, >> >> Do you think this patch is OK? Can this be considered for merging? >> >> Thanks, >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c >> index 90f292b..13d6a00 100644 >> --- a/fs/nfs/file.

Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

2009-04-20 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:09 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > Hi Trond, > > Do you think this patch is OK? Can this be considered for merging? > > Thanks, > > Masahiro Tamori wrote: > > Hello Suresh and Mathieu, > > > > 2009/4/2 Suresh Jayaraman : > >> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > >>> * Suresh Jay

Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

2009-04-20 Thread Trond Myklebust
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:08 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:09 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > >> Hi Trond, > >> > >> Do you think this patch is OK? Can this be considered for merging? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b

Re: [ltt-dev] [PATCH] nfs: add support for splice writes

2009-04-20 Thread Suresh Jayaraman
Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:08 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: >> Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 11:09 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: Hi Trond, Do you think this patch is OK? Can this be considered for merging? + + if (IS_SWAP

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:31:48 -0700 David VomLehn wrote: > Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race > conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and > initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening /dev/console > fails and a

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Alan Stern
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > If we want b) then how to do it? > > One possibility: the initcalls have been completed when init_post() is > called. How about: if one of those initcalls will be asynchronously > registering a console, it should inform the console layer about this. >

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > If we want b) then how to do it? > > > > One possibility: the initcalls have been completed when init_post() is > > called. How about: if one of those initcalls will be asynchronously >

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
> Personally, I'm in favor of adding a boot parameter. Things could be > simplified slightly by treating a negative value (or a missing value) > as indicating an infinite timeout; then only one new parameter would be > needed instead of two. I'm allergic to the idea of a user interface using n

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:14:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) > Alan Stern wrote: ... > > What if a subsystem simply doesn't know in advance whether or not it's > > going to register a console? Or doesn't know when it has finished > > probing all devi

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:35:00 -0700 David VomLehn wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:14:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) > > Alan Stern wrote: > ... > > > What if a subsystem simply doesn't know in advance whether or not it's > > > going to register

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:29:48 -0700 David VomLehn wrote: > I do agree with the idea of adding one boot parameter rather than two. zero parameters if at all possible, please... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.k

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:35:00PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote: > With USB, you just can't *ever* get it right. There is no limit on how > long a device has to tell you its there. I wish this weren't the case, > but our good friends in the USB world tell us that we have been lucky > to have had USB

Re: [Patch] Wait for console to become available, ver 3

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:50:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:35:00 -0700 > David VomLehn wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 03:14:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:51:16 -0400 (EDT) > > > Alan Stern wrote: > > ... > > > > What if a subsyst

Wait for console to become available, v3.2

2009-04-20 Thread David VomLehn
Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough that race conditions now exist between the init_post() open of /dev/console and initialization of the console device. When this occurs, opening /dev/console fails and any applications inherited from init have no standard in/out/error

Re: Wait for console to become available, v3.2

2009-04-20 Thread Ingo Molnar
* David VomLehn wrote: > Parallelization to improve boot times has been successful enough > that race conditions now exist between the init_post() open of > /dev/console and initialization of the console device. When this > occurs, opening /dev/console fails and any applications inherited >