Re: [RFC 2/5] iwlwifi: fix request_module() use

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:17:15PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:15:41PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:16:16AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > a) just remove the print and use instead request_module_nowait() (this is
> > > > more in alignment of what your code actually does today; or
> > > > 
> > > > b) fix the request_module() use so that the error print matches the
> > > > expected and proper recommended use of request_module() (what this patch
> > > > does)
> > > > 
> > > > I prefer a) actually but I had to show what b) looked like first :)
> > >
> > > Me too. Let's do the simple thing. After all, it's been working for 5 years
> > > now (maybe more?) and I don't see a huge need to verify that the opmode
> > > module has been loaded.  It is very unlikely to fail anyway, and in the case
> > > it did fail, it's not that we can do much from iwlwifi point of view. 
> > 
> > I tend to agree with you on this, retries would be the only sensible thing to
> > do, but why do that -- the error should be logged right and addressed by any
> > upper layers. Its one reason to consider in the future adding verifiers
> > as built-in optional part of module loading.
> 
> It would seem we still need to offload the opmode start as it is the one that
> really should be issuing the completion, otherwise we would end up sending a
> completion while the opmode module is being loaded asynchronously. The changes
> are for that are still very likely desirable as it should help with speeding
> boot up.
> 
> So the sharing of the opcode start will go first.
> 
> Will send v2.

Actually the completion was always being sent prior to request_module(), so this
would not change anything really. The sharing of the opcode then is optional,
and I can send separately in another series.

  Luis