From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755359AbZE2BYi (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 21:24:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753188AbZE2BYb (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 21:24:31 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f191.google.com ([209.85.216.191]:45430 "EHLO mail-px0-f191.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752471AbZE2BYa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 21:24:30 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GXbctrNHjit5UfDqOxlJu66OzyCmvHnCRSkBOv5me8nTXtSztnot0mH4W9LLX8FusL 5UtgBrNQervi7Wem7xgIT3KlGCCmxjZaM3SIzh+d6pn3cu5OIx4fPmYgCPepAUvxhG+Y C4QV72Jhqnr0JwpRiNyLSXekIIQTUxVgTSo0E= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090528201450.GA4043@kroah.com> References: <1243004787-5362-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com> <20090522161016.36ef6f15@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090528201450.GA4043@kroah.com> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:24:32 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core : fix request_firmware_nowait From: Ming Lei To: Greg KH Cc: Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2009/5/29 Greg KH : > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:26:16PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> 2009/5/22 Alan Cox : >> > On Fri, 22 May 2009 23:06:27 +0800 >> > tom.leiming@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> >> From: Ming Lei >> >> >> >> request_firmware_nowait declares it can be called in non-sleep contexts, >> >> but kthead_run which is called by request_firmware_nowait may sleep. >> > >> > Does anyone actually need to call it in a non-sleeping context or can the >> > documentation simply be fixed instead to avoid all the extra complexity ? >> > >> >> It seems no one calls it in a non-sleeping context now, but we can provide it >> without much extra complexity, IMHO.  Also someone has complained it : >> >>       http://marc.info/?t=124022846400003&r=1&w=2 > > That was 3 years ago :) No, just one month ago, also the name of *_nowait is very misleading and only documentation fix seems not enough, right? http://marc.info/?t=124022846400003&r=1&w=2 2009-04-20 Am I allowed to call request_firmware_nowait from an linux-ker John Hughes > > I say just fix the documentation. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > -- Lei Ming