[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1345997040.5138.1.camel@pasglop>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 02:04:00 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
systemd-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: udev 182: response timeout for request_firmware in module_probe
path
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 17:46 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > IMO, the driver probing path is allowed to sleep, so looks request
> firmware
> > should be allowed inside .probe().
>
> I'm not convinced about that. It can sleep but its holding various
> locks
> in most cases, and it looks like that can end up in a complete heap.
>
> By all means *request* the firmware asynchronously in the probe, but
> there needs to be a seperate method somewhere after the probe to
> finish
> the job once the firmware appears.
Not necessarily enough in the general case, for example some stacks will
cause a driver open to be call back from somewhere within the
register_foo() the driver did to register itself with it's subsystem
inside probe. For example register_framebuffer(), register_netdev(), ...
This is clearly a udev bug :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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