From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030245Ab2CNCAw (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:00:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:61639 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965170Ab2CNCAu (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:00:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <201203032122.36745.chunkeey@googlemail.com> <201203132042.07794.rjw@sisk.pl> <201203140110.40671.rjw@sisk.pl> From: Kay Sievers Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:00:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: don't cancel _nowait requests when helper is not yet available To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Greg KH , Christian Lamparter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Linux PM mailing list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:55, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 02:51, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Kay Sievers wrote: >>> >>> usermodehelper_is_disabled() is a flag from kmod which is all about >>> exec(). That flag should not be used to decide if a firmware request >>> can be issued by a driver and queued up or not. >> >> Sorry, you're wrong. And Rafael *told* you why you are wrong, and you >> ignored him and talked about "exec" some more. >> >> So go back and read Rafael's email. The point is, you are focusing too >> much on the name (which Rafael talked about and said is misleading). >> >> But it's not the name that matters, it's the concept. Loading firmware >> during the suspend process is broken (read Rafael's email about >> suggested renaming). >> >> AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXEC. It doesn't matter *how* you load >> it. You could load it by reading a file directly from disk, AND IT >> WOULD STILL BE WRONG FOR THE EXACT SAME DAMN REASON. >> >> I outlined that reason too. The filesystem may not be up and running yet. >> >> Get it? >> >> So please, read the emails. People actually *agree* that the name may >> be a bit misleading, but instead of harping on bogus issues, just read >> the emails from people like Rafael about it. >> >> So STOP with this idiocy already. It has nothing to do with exec. >> Seriously. Get that through your head already. > > I do NOT talk about exec, I talk about a REQUEST which can be QUEUED > just fine, but which the kernel refuses to QUEUE, even when it will > not harm anything. That check and warning is wrong. In simpler words: request_firmware() does nothing but queue up an asynchrounous uevent in a socket, that always workls, there is no need to refuse that in the kernel and throw any warning at that point in time. Kay