Re: [patch 2.6.12-rc3] modifications in firmware_class.c to support nohotplug

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:09:53AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 6/8/05, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:56:19AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On 6/8/05, Abhay Salunke <Abhay_Salunke@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ fw_setup_class_device(struct firmware *f
> > > >                printk(KERN_ERR "%s: class_device_create_file failed\n",
> > > >                       __FUNCTION__);
> > > >                goto error_unreg;
> > > > +r
> > >
> > > What is this?
> > 
> > Proof he didn't test the code :(
> > 
> > > I think it would be better if you just have request_firmware and
> > > request_firmware_nowait accept timeout parameter that would override
> > > default timeout in firmware_class. 0 would mean use default,
> > > MAX_SCHED_TIMEOUT - wait indefinitely.
> > 
> > Yes and no.  Yes in that we should have a timeout value.  No in that 0
> > should be "forever" and we #define the current 10 second value.
> > 
> 
> Are you saying that we should rip out of the firmware_class current
> timeout attribute?

Change it from being a global to local to the firmware device?

> I thought it was a nice to have system-wide defult that can be
> adjusted by operator w/o need to recompile anything.

But (as recent udev bugs have proven) no one ever changes that default
value :(

In the end, I don't really care either way.  All I would like to see is
for there to be a timeout value for the function calls like you state
above.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
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/