On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 10/21/2013 08:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> And why don't you pass FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG? and you are sure >>>> that udev isn't required to handle your microcode update request? >>>> >>> >>> AFAICT in both cases, udev wasn't required to handle the cpu microcode >>> update. >>> Both drivers use CMH to load the firmware which removes the need for udev >>> to do >>> anything. Admittedly maybe I've missed some odd use case but I don't think >>> it >>> is necessary. >> >> OK, so I guess the CMH still need uevent to get notified, right? > > The code as it is _currently_ written does not use uevents to load the > processor > firmware. ie) call_usermodehelper does not need uevent to get notified, so I > think FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG is correct.
You need to make sure your patch won't break userspace in old distribution with your _currently_ code. Actually if udev isn't used in your user space, the timeout issue won't be triggered because it is blocked by udev. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/