From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A8F10E1D9
 for <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>; Fri,  1 Apr 2022 02:21:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:21:45 -0700
Message-ID: <87pmm1h7ba.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: "Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele" <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <f5b445b0-18e6-898d-d451-86cab6ac3a9c@intel.com>
References: <20220330183259.3003663-1-daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
 <20220330183259.3003663-2-daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
 <87r16hh868.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
 <f5b445b0-18e6-898d-d451-86cab6ac3a9c@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/2] lib/igt_kmod: Wait for a kmod to
 finish its probe before unloding it.
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/igt-dev>,
 <mailto:igt-dev-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/igt-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:igt-dev-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev>,
 <mailto:igt-dev-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "igt-dev" <igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-ID: <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>

On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:11:23 -0700, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
>
> On 3/31/2022 7:03 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 11:32:58 -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> >> diff --git a/lib/igt_kmod.c b/lib/igt_kmod.c
> >> index cf7a3b22..d2ac8a56 100644
> >> --- a/lib/igt_kmod.c
> >> +++ b/lib/igt_kmod.c
> >> @@ -143,6 +143,12 @@ out:
> >>	return ret;
> >>   }
> >>
> >> +static bool
> >> +igt_kmod_is_loading(struct kmod_module *kmod)
> >> +{
> >> +	return kmod_module_get_initstate(kmod) =3D=3D KMOD_MODULE_COMING;
> > One idea would be to check for KMOD_MODULE_LIVE here which will basical=
ly
> > invert the logic in the loop but will be a more exact check? But anyway
> > it's equivalent so no need to change I guess.
>
> I was undecided myself, but decided to go with "COMING" because that
> matches the exact case I was looking for (i.e. init in progress). I can
> flip it to check for KMOD_MODULE_LIVE=A0 if you think that works better
> and/or is more generic.

Leave as is. Or you decide, either is ok with me. Thanks.