From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751554AbcJJSkn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:40:43 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:33969 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751317AbcJJSkl (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 10 Oct 2016 14:40:41 -0400
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:40:37 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "rafael.j.wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] firmware: document user mode helper lock usage
Message-ID: <20161010184037.GA8651@wotan.suse.de>
References: <1473423144-21734-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
 <1473423144-21734-2-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org>
 <20160909221446.GO3296@wotan.suse.de>
 <CACVXFVMNAg7pPPx=b=pus8d-xDdbrhe=GqYtm_kyA8rnNmji8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ab544ba0-2128-055f-3190-6a1a24e879e1@bmw-carit.de>
 <20161005204628.GH3296@wotan.suse.de>
 <2ec51622-f727-e884-1a09-a595a31f4b21@bmw-carit.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2ec51622-f727-e884-1a09-a595a31f4b21@bmw-carit.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:16:29AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> IIRC, we hadn't really settle on what the right solution is or I couldn't
> parse it. That is why I am asking specifically which version is the right
> thing. Don't worry I don't want to shortcut here :)

The removal of the lock from the general case is the right thing, I however
wanted Ming to also acknowledge this change, I suppose he can do so if you
supply a respin, or you can wait.

  Luis