Re: [PATCH] firmware: Don't attempt to allocate zero bytes withvmalloc()

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 03:05:30PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Mark Brown

> > It seems better to punt that decision to callers - for example, the case

> In fact, -ENOENT is returned to caller for non-direct loading situation,
> see_request_firmware_load().

> I understand drivers(caller) may be cheated if a zero-length firmware
> image is obtained. In normal situation, one firmware image should
> include something, instead of nothing, :-)

Hrm, that didn't seem to be happening for me - the firmware load
completed successfully.  Have to check how that happened.

> > I ran into this with was a driver that was using a zero length firmware
> > to say that it didn't want to load an optional image but also didn't
> > want to have to time out if that was the case.  That doesn't seem

> If so, I am wondering why the driver has to call request_firmware()?
> Looks just bypassing request_firmware() is fine for the driver, doesn't it?

A driver has no way to tell if the firmware is there or not without
asking for it.
--
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/