From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262912AbVGHW27 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 18:28:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262926AbVGHW0p (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 18:26:45 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:49060 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262935AbVGHW0S (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 18:26:18 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:24:38 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Abhay_Salunke@Dell.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.12-rc3] modified firmware_class.c to add a new function request_firmware_nowait_nohotplug Message-ID: <20050708222438.GA22141@kroah.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:54:07PM -0500, Abhay_Salunke@Dell.com wrote: > > Also, why not just add the hotplug flag to the firmware structure? > That > request_firmware kmalloc's the firmware structure and frees it when > returned. The only way to indicate request_firmware to skip hotplug was > by passing a hotplug flag on the stack. Ok, how about changing the function to pass in a flag saying what it wants (wait/nowait, hotplug/nohotplug) and fix up all callers of it? > > way you don't have to add another function just to add another flag. > > And you could probably get rid of the nowait version in the same way. > Also thought of leaving request_firmware_nowait intact didn't want to > break others using this function. Did you find any other in-kernel use of request_firmware_nowait? I don't see any :) thanks, greg k-h