[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPXgP118s+DuLaATKOq7w=F82GB=8PkwUJDichffXA-Er6Zqvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:14:35 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware loader: don't cancel _nowait requests when
helper is not yet available
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2012, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> It is relevant in the sense that the firmware loader should not even
>> know that a uevent *can* cause a usermodehelper exec() if it runs in
>> legacy mode. The firmware loader just has no business in fiddling with
>> the details of driver core legacy stuff. I don't think his warning
>> makes much sense.
>
> But that warning actually triggers for drivers that attempt to use
> request_firmware() during system resume, even though /sbin/hotplug isn't
> used any more.
>
> usermodehelper_is_disabled() means "we are in the middle of system power
> transition" rather than anything else (I agree it should be called
> suspend_in_progress() or something similar these days).
Yeah it's certainly useful to disable the exec() during suspend calls,
much more than using the exec() inhibit flag for the firmware loader
to throw a warning about suspend issues.
Such confusing hacks need at least a comment, that makes this very obvious. :)
Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists