From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Oct 25 22:30:01 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9CCAE55AF9 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x22c.google.com (mail-it0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8918D84B5F for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:30:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id o135so2864887itb.0 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=kOop7/FR7cTxrRKKbwJICx7+tMxilY6dblh6zKLRlQQ=; b=H5B/ogQ8PwmIZqTG/NML0xkdAugxP+ul27sGg1lfaRsZR1HgyWQftg3lAMyFgcxU9R SXDQcgyL92M6S0aOklvinMkSFkQfzZELooCn6ezYFuI61D1BsPMbujfuuHcaznBnC01d GoGZEV7M1AQbBOFb9KqTede2+c0Zn6lASS8ZgNimd10z8qUvsbo3YJ6CW/7y4Z8zt+pL T6NwkFqCteaQCKrzFFxd5/QVeVj+UaH5ZiF8F+O2wNNgwJv1tk8twCwRw32URcYuvCB+ uxAY3EDmzyNjYtxBApgmy0yqFwjKbNn/UFDnVAmWox0ZVa8e5KYnY9XesO8t2oIbWi2O vPEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kOop7/FR7cTxrRKKbwJICx7+tMxilY6dblh6zKLRlQQ=; b=J4p2WNyzYn0sWKn2BweUPF868jWKGZ12u5DG++YFRu4852GPPmTfWSZz6WTZRWqmro A0JWsNkKhwDS6kFZEFPc4C/HqMMUAbwd+T9+KIeDNSgBZWKrobDjnFtobKsm+InOYv45 rXIqAwgfVLvVpvaq9vULwY0tGBAAVpdL6eAbVCMVfBJ0+7usuM25QsthP6O7gAQiO/oJ 6htvO5MjpeXnPcNIOnVlJuOZ6Y4woeHMEkQUXeQbMssDPHAlk/hVwrZWpNiKQ96slk4p 9W2YzjKnlrMDt8WbtTonPZO/Qja+Y5S6tw6aPQlPePkGWVevc+wxumns63N0nfeDFS2J Xfyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVdZ6WbZkK50KRNVHMeGXMJWc2SAKTlyP/JxeJMJW3Lbw1DVkd5 xfW5kKW6vYSevQ0qnnf8Mpy1Ql0zhaxOOjuzydn+Fg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Q7gXWidWtBKXt3wbax8+w/TqEz4JbKvbJ6R5Veudwk/LGDAPNcGmEF0VbzOIN0OwsH381M7ikza1f7jYEK0yw= X-Received: by 10.36.69.100 with SMTP id y97mr4309250ita.50.1508970600584; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:30:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.57.22 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2017 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:9c93:1751:a648:919b] In-Reply-To: <0100015f557d9cd2-098d2e99-d4c4-45ce-90bf-47b76455a6de-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <0100015f557d9cd2-098d2e99-d4c4-45ce-90bf-47b76455a6de-000000@email.amazonses.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:29:59 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TGBaqonYS9wa00_yTWx_S7ter84 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Removing hpt* drivers from GENERIC To: Colin Percival Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:30:01 -0000 On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Colin Percival wrote: > Hi developers, > > I'd like to remove the hpt* drivers from GENERIC. These are the drivers > for the HighPoint storage hardware -- SATA (hptnr) and RAID (hpt27xx, > hptiop, > hptmv, hptrr). > > My reason for wanting to remove them is that the hpt27xx and hptnr drivers > spend ~150 ms in their DEVICE_PROBE routines every time the system boots. > Since they are roughly 1000x slower than the median driver, this is clearly > excessive; unfortunately the time is being spent inside a binary blob, so > there is no apparent way to fix the drivers. (The other three drives from > the same vendor -- hptiop, hptmv, and hptrr -- don't exhibit this > particular > bug, but I don't see any strong argument in favour of not removing them > along > with the two problem drivers.) > > All of these are available via kernel modules, so the impact upon users > should be minimal. Obviously I would not plan on MFCing this change. > > Any objections? > Works for me. Given that the user can load the modules by hand, it should be minimal impact. It needs to be in the release notes. And we should make sure that the installer copes if the user starts a shell and loads it after the installer has started... Though that's not a gating issue. Warner