Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:26:32 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.12-rc3] modifications in firmware_class.c to support nohotplug |
| |
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:23:30AM -0500, Abhay_Salunke@Dell.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:greg@kroah.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 11:10 AM > > To: Salunke, Abhay > > Cc: dtor_core@ameritech.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > akpm@osdl.org; > > Domsch, Matt; ranty@debian.org > > Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.12-rc3] modifications in firmware_class.c to > > support nohotplug > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:04:09AM -0500, Abhay_Salunke@Dell.com > wrote: > > > > I think it would be better if you just have request_firmware and > > > > request_firmware_nowait accept timeout parameter that would > override > > > > default timeout in firmware_class. 0 would mean use default, > > > > MAX_SCHED_TIMEOUT - wait indefinitely. > > > > > > But we still need to avoid hotplug being invoked as we need it be a > > > manual process. > > > > No, hotplug can happen just fine (it happens loads of times today for > > things that people don't care about.) > > > If hotplug happens the complete function is called which makes the > request_firmware return with a failure.
If this was true, then the current code would not work at all. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |