Re: [PATCH 2/6] firmware_class: Split _request_firmware() into three functions

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/26/12 13:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, March 26, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 03/25/12 15:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> @@ -639,8 +655,15 @@ static int request_firmware_work_func(vo
> >>>  		return 0;
> >>>  	}
> >>>  
> >>> -	ret = _request_firmware(&fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device,
> >>> +	ret = _request_firmware_prepare(&fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device);
> >>> +	if (ret <= 0)
> >>> +		return ret;
> >> This needs to jump to the cont function so that users know loading
> >> failed or that the firmware was builtin.
> > You're right, sorry.  That should have been
> >
> > 	if (ret > 0) {
> > 		ret = _request_firmware(fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device,
> > 			fw_work->uevent, true);
> > 		if (ret)
> > 			_request_firmware_cleanup(&fw);
> > 	}
> >
> > but actually using a jump makes the next patch look better.
> >
> > Updated patch is appended.
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: firmware_class: Split _request_firmware() into three functions, v2
> >
> > Split _request_firmware() into three functions,
> > _request_firmware_prepare() doing preparatory work that need not be
> > done under umhelper_sem, _request_firmware_cleanup() doing the
> > post-error cleanup and _request_firmware() carrying out the remaining
> > operations.
> >
> > This change is requisite for moving the acquisition of umhelper_sem
> > from _request_firmware() to the callers, which is going to be done
> > subsequently.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/