lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] firmware_class: Split _request_firmware() into three functions
Date
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/26/12 13:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, March 26, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 03/25/12 15:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> @@ -639,8 +655,15 @@ static int request_firmware_work_func(vo
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - ret = _request_firmware(&fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device,
> >>> + ret = _request_firmware_prepare(&fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device);
> >>> + if (ret <= 0)
> >>> + return ret;
> >> This needs to jump to the cont function so that users know loading
> >> failed or that the firmware was builtin.
> > You're right, sorry. That should have been
> >
> > if (ret > 0) {
> > ret = _request_firmware(fw, fw_work->name, fw_work->device,
> > fw_work->uevent, true);
> > if (ret)
> > _request_firmware_cleanup(&fw);
> > }
> >
> > but actually using a jump makes the next patch look better.
> >
> > Updated patch is appended.
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > Subject: firmware_class: Split _request_firmware() into three functions, v2
> >
> > Split _request_firmware() into three functions,
> > _request_firmware_prepare() doing preparatory work that need not be
> > done under umhelper_sem, _request_firmware_cleanup() doing the
> > post-error cleanup and _request_firmware() carrying out the remaining
> > operations.
> >
> > This change is requisite for moving the acquisition of umhelper_sem
> > from _request_firmware() to the callers, which is going to be done
> > subsequently.
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>

Thanks!

Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-27 23:49    [W:0.080 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site