From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:50568 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752631AbdBVAS1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:18:27 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 01:18:22 +0100 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: "Grumbach, Emmanuel" , "Berg, Johannes" , "Coelho, Luciano" , "tj@kernel.org" , "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "ming.lei@canonical.com" , "zajec5@gmail.com" , "jeyu@redhat.com" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "pmladek@suse.com" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , linuxwifi , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] iwlwifi: fix request_module() use Message-ID: <20170222001822.GE31264@wotan.suse.de> (sfid-20170222_011831_220296_EA20C25A) References: <20170217020903.6370-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170217020903.6370-3-mcgrof@kernel.org> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3A8F4AE27@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170221022337.GG31264@wotan.suse.de> <0BA3FCBA62E2DC44AF3030971E174FB3A8F4DEAB@hasmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170221181541.GN31264@wotan.suse.de> <20170221201715.GZ31264@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170221201715.GZ31264@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:17:15PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:15:41PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:16:16AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > > > > > > > a) just remove the print and use instead request_module_nowait() (this is > > > > more in alignment of what your code actually does today; or > > > > > > > > b) fix the request_module() use so that the error print matches the > > > > expected and proper recommended use of request_module() (what this patch > > > > does) > > > > > > > > I prefer a) actually but I had to show what b) looked like first :) > > > > > > Me too. Let's do the simple thing. After all, it's been working for 5 years > > > now (maybe more?) and I don't see a huge need to verify that the opmode > > > module has been loaded. It is very unlikely to fail anyway, and in the case > > > it did fail, it's not that we can do much from iwlwifi point of view. > > > > I tend to agree with you on this, retries would be the only sensible thing to > > do, but why do that -- the error should be logged right and addressed by any > > upper layers. Its one reason to consider in the future adding verifiers > > as built-in optional part of module loading. > > It would seem we still need to offload the opmode start as it is the one that > really should be issuing the completion, otherwise we would end up sending a > completion while the opmode module is being loaded asynchronously. The changes > are for that are still very likely desirable as it should help with speeding > boot up. > > So the sharing of the opcode start will go first. > > Will send v2. Actually the completion was always being sent prior to request_module(), so this would not change anything really. The sharing of the opcode then is optional, and I can send separately in another series. Luis