At Sun, 12 May 2013 21:59:51 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > ---
> > From: Takashi Iwai
> > Subject: [PATCH v2] firmware: Avoid deadlock of usermodehelper lock at
> > shutdown
> >
> > When a system goes to reboot/shutdown, it tries to disab
At Sun, 12 May 2013 21:32:39 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Sat, 11 May 2013 21:01:27 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> > At Fri, 10 May 2013 09:25:51 +0800,
> >> >>
> >> >> Anywa
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> ---
> From: Takashi Iwai
> Subject: [PATCH v2] firmware: Avoid deadlock of usermodehelper lock at
> shutdown
>
> When a system goes to reboot/shutdown, it tries to disable the
> usermode helper via usermodehelper_disable(). This might be b
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Sat, 11 May 2013 21:01:27 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> > At Fri, 10 May 2013 09:25:51 +0800,
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, if you want to force killing loader, please only kill these
>> >> FW
At Sat, 11 May 2013 21:01:27 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 10 May 2013 09:25:51 +0800,
> >>
> >> Anyway, if you want to force killing loader, please only kill these
> >> FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG before suspend and reboot, and do
> >> not to
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 10 May 2013 09:25:51 +0800,
>>
>> Anyway, if you want to force killing loader, please only kill these
>> FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG before suspend and reboot, and do
>> not touch FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG. Is it OK for you?
>
> Note that, as with my
At Fri, 10 May 2013 09:25:51 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 9 May 2013 16:43:28 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> > At Thu, 9 May 2013 09:25:35 +0800,
> >> > Ming Lei wrote:
>
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 9 May 2013 16:43:28 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> > At Thu, 9 May 2013 09:25:35 +0800,
>> > Ming Lei wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> >>
At Thu, 9 May 2013 16:43:28 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 9 May 2013 09:25:35 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> >> In other words, the first patch is no essential part of the
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Thu, 9 May 2013 09:25:35 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> >> In other words, the first patch is no essential part of the fix.
>> >> I can revisit the second patch without this one and res
At Thu, 9 May 2013 09:25:35 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> In other words, the first patch is no essential part of the fix.
> >> I can revisit the second patch without this one and resend if
> >> preferred.
> >
> > FWIW, below is the revised pa
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> In other words, the first patch is no essential part of the fix.
>> I can revisit the second patch without this one and resend if
>> preferred.
>
> FWIW, below is the revised patch.
> It's alone without the patch 1 in the previous series.
The
At Wed, 08 May 2013 18:37:01 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> At Wed, 08 May 2013 18:21:11 +0200,
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> > At Wed, 8 May 2013 23:52:02 +0800,
> > Ming Lei wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > When a firmware file can be loaded directl
At Wed, 08 May 2013 18:21:11 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> At Wed, 8 May 2013 23:52:02 +0800,
> Ming Lei wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > When a firmware file can be loaded directly, there is no good reason
> > > to lock usermodehelper. It's needed only
At Wed, 8 May 2013 23:52:02 +0800,
Ming Lei wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > When a firmware file can be loaded directly, there is no good reason
> > to lock usermodehelper. It's needed only when the direct fw load
> > fails and falls back to the user-mode helpe
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> When a firmware file can be loaded directly, there is no good reason
> to lock usermodehelper. It's needed only when the direct fw load
> fails and falls back to the user-mode helper.
I remembered that we discussed the problem before, :-)
So
When a firmware file can be loaded directly, there is no good reason
to lock usermodehelper. It's needed only when the direct fw load
fails and falls back to the user-mode helper.
Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai
---
drivers/base/firmware_class.c | 42 +++---
1 fi
17 matches
Mail list logo
