From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751790Ab0CLFaR (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:30:17 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:36150 "EHLO mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750940Ab0CLFaP (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:30:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1268369163.4828.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> References: <1268347174.4142.11.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1268348199.4142.33.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <1268369163.4828.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> From: Kay Sievers Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:29:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware class: export nowait to userspace To: Johannes Berg Cc: LKML , Tomas Winkler , Greg KH , David Woodhouse 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 Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:46, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 05:21 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> The firmware_class already always exports a TIMEOUT= value, right? If >> this is the case, it should be set to 0, I guess. > > Yes and no. It is exported, but typically it will be 60 seconds. And > even in this case it makes sense to eventually time out when userspace > is not responding. Ok, I didn't expect the async version to time out. Sounds fine then. >> Sounds fine to have a flag like this, while "NOWAIT" is, I guess, a >> pretty bad name from the event perspective. This name might make sense >> for the called kernel function, but not so much for a firmware loader >> instruction. > > Yeah, I can agree with that. How about "ASYNC" or so? It needs to > distinguish between "I'm going to wait for this please respond" and "I'm > not really waiting, please let me now when you can". Yeah, sounds fine to me. Thanks, Kay