[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200113155006.GC11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:50:06 +0000
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Dave Olsthoorn <dave@...aar.me>, x86@...nel.org,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 05/10] test_firmware: add support for
firmware_request_platform
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:22:36PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> test_firmware and dropping the mutex calls is better. I will make
> this change for v12 of this series.
>
> I'll send out a v12 once the remarks from Andy Lutomirski's
> have also been discussed.
Sure, just think twice about loosing the ability to access the
test_firmware pointer from userspace. If you can find value
in extending your tests then keep it, otherwise if its just
to do the actual test in C in the call itself, it makes sense
to avoid it for that test case.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists