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

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On 6/8/05, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:23:30AM -0500, Abhay_Salunke@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:10 AM
> > > To: Salunke, Abhay
> > > Cc: dtor_core@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > akpm@xxxxxxxx;
> > > Domsch, Matt; ranty@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.12-rc3] modifications in firmware_class.c to
> > > support nohotplug
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:04:09AM -0500, Abhay_Salunke@xxxxxxxx
> > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > But we still need to avoid hotplug being invoked as we need it be a
> > > > manual process.
> > >
> > > No, hotplug can happen just fine (it happens loads of times today for
> > > things that people don't care about.)
> > >
> > If hotplug happens the complete function is called which makes the
> > request_firmware return with a failure.
> 
> If this was true, then the current code would not work at all.
> 

What Abhay is trying to say is that default firmware.agent when it
does not find requested firmware file writes -1 (abort) to "loading"
attribute causing firmware_request to fail.

I think it should be fixed in firmware.agent though, not in kernel -
the agent shoudl just recognoze that sometimes not having firmware
file is ok.

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/