From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754643AbdBUSRE (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:17:04 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60140 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751272AbdBUSPq (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 13:15:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:15:41 +0100 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Berg, Johannes" , "Coelho, Luciano" , "tj@kernel.org" , "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "ming.lei@canonical.com" , "zajec5@gmail.com" , "jeyu@redhat.com" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "pmladek@suse.com" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , linuxwifi , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] iwlwifi: fix request_module() use Message-ID: <20170221181541.GN31264@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170217020903.6370-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170217020903.6370-3-mcgrof@kernel.org> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3A8F4AE27@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170221022337.GG31264@wotan.suse.de> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3A8F4DEAB@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3A8F4DEAB@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > iwlwifi will stay loaded and sit idle since no opmode will be there to start > using the hardware. We will keep having the device claimed, and will keep the > interrupt registered and all that. No WiFi for you, but no harm caused > either. Fine by me. Will send follow up simple patches. Luis