From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753016AbbCSPaE (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:30:04 -0400 Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]:58667 "EHLO mail-vc0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752580AbbCSPaC (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:30:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:29:57 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Doug Thompson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Tetsuo Handa , Olof Johansson , Arjan van de Ven , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Luis R . Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] EDAC: amd64_edac: decide if driver can load successfully early. Message-ID: <20150319152957.GI25365@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1426726150-983-1-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <1426726150-983-4-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20150319094054.GC10860@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150319094054.GC10860@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Borislav. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:40:54AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > This is why I did the drv_instances hack - I don't want it to load if > there's no ECC support on the system as it is confusing to people and > tools. > > It'd need to be able for the async probing to unload the driver if not a > single node instance loads successfully. I don't really think this is the type of things we want to be doing in the specific drivers. It makes the driver behave differnetly from everything else. If a feature like this is actually necessary, please implement a proper abstraction at the driver layer (e.g. a flag to indicate that if the initial probe fails, there's no point in keeping the driver around) but frankly I don't think this matters enough to warrant such extra complexities. This is a gloss layering violation. Please don't do things like this. I'm all for ripping out the hack even w/o considering the async probe issue. Thanks. -- tejun