mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
To: Javier Pello <javier.pello@urjc.es>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] request_firmware: skip timeout if userspace was not notified
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:58:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070807125844.4d756b04@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46B7832B.6010808@urjc.es>

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:23:07 +0200,
Javier Pello <javier.pello@urjc.es> wrote:

> > > 2. The second part changes _request_firmware in
> > > drivers/base/firmware_class.c to actually check the return value
> > > of kobject_uevent and skip the loading_timeout delay if the
> > > loading event was not delivered to userspace at all.
> > 
> > Note that kobject_uevent() returns 0 if the event has been filtered.
> 
> Oops, yes, I had not noticed. This brings another point: When should
> kobject_uevent return a "failure"? The code, as it is, only returns a
> failure when things are really wrong (out of memory, etc.), and
> returns success when the event was simply dropped. This is reasonable
> behaviour, but it prevents callers from knowing whether the event was
> actually delivered (which is what request_firmware needs). On the
> other hand, my patch tries to make nondelivery an error, but on
> second thoughts that could prevent the caller from telling hard
> errors from simple nondelivery.

You could say that not delivering is caused by a hard error when trying
to deliver, though. OTOH, filtering an event is certainly not an error.

> I can think of two possibilities
> to sort this out:
> 
> - kobject_uevent returns an error code both on a hard error and
> on nondelivery; the error codes for both situations are different,
> so the caller can tell them apart.

Tough. For example, both today's kobject_uevent() and
call_usermodehelper() may return -ENOMEM.

> 
> - kobject_uevent returns an error code (<0) only on a hard error,
> returns 0 on nondelivery and 1 on delivery; this makes things
> even clearer.

Hm, I have an aversion against tri-state return values :( OTOH, a)
callers generally don't care and b) it is in line with how
kobject_uevent() is defined if !CONFIG_HOTPLUG.

- Use an extra parameter in which successful delivery can be indicated.
Make this
int kobject_uevent_env_check(struct kobject *kobject,
			     enum kobject_action action,
			     char *envp[], int delivered);
so existing callers that don't care don't have to be changed.

> 
> I am biased towards the latter. Of course, we can do anything as
> the return value is actually never used, but I would still like
> to know other opinions about what the right thing is.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-07 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-03 19:07 Javier Pello
2007-08-04  5:21 ` david
2007-08-04  8:50   ` Javier Pello
2007-08-04 17:09     ` david
2007-08-04 21:20       ` Javier Pello
2007-08-06 12:24 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-06 20:23   ` Javier Pello
     [not found]     ` <20070807125844.4d756b04@gondo lin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
2007-08-07 10:58     ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2007-08-07 11:46       ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-07 12:10         ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-07 12:31           ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-07 12:48             ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-07 12:47           ` Javier Pello
2007-08-07 12:57             ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-07 13:15               ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-07 13:59               ` Javier Pello
2007-08-07 14:08                 ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-07 14:38                   ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-09  9:13                   ` Javier Pello
2007-08-09  9:21                     ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-09  9:26                     ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-07 14:26                 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-08-09  9:36                   ` Javier Pello
2007-08-09 11:58                     ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-10 21:24                       ` Javier Pello
2007-08-11 13:26                         ` Kay Sievers
2007-08-07 20:05 ` Andrew Morton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070807125844.4d756b04@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com \
    --to=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=javier.pello@urjc.es \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®