On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:13:44AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > On 09/22/2016 04:36 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcg...@kernel.org> wrote: > >>On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 02:12:20PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > >>>From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wag...@bmw-carit.de> > >>> > >>>The lock is also used to generate warnings when a direct > >>>firmware load is requested too early. > >> > >>I've determined the firmware cache lets us bail out of this > >>consideration now. If Ming agrees with the logic we don't need this > >>patch and you can continue as you had intended. Sorry for the trouble. > > > >IMO it is helpful to add comment about using the lock for direct loading, > >and we can sort it out in future if anyone want to improve it. > > > >So for this patch, I am fine. > > Sorry, I am a bit confused now. What is the consensus here: > > a) add a comment to _request_firmware() as in this patch #1 v5
The adding a comment note from Daniel was that the UMH lock is *not* needed on the direct firmware loading case, he's lazy to remove it now so he'll just add a comment. > b) move the umh locking to fw_load_from_user_helper() as in > patch #1 v4 This is fine and IMHO the non-lazy approach. To be clear -- I did my own vetting of the removal of the lock by inspecting the original purpose of the UMH lock being added on the history Linux git tree, having a secondary review of that would be appreciated as well. Luis
