From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754178Ab3JUOZq (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:25:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21187 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753285Ab3JUOZp (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:25:45 -0400 Message-ID: <5265395C.2040807@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:25:32 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110419 Red Hat/3.1.10-1.el6_0 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ming Lei CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , x86@kernel.org, herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com, tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] intel_microcode, Fix long microcode load time when firmware file is missing References: <1382304926-1641-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1382304926-1641-3-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <52651D8C.3090203@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/21/2013 08:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> And why don't you pass FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG? and you are sure >>> that udev isn't required to handle your microcode update request? >>> >> >> AFAICT in both cases, udev wasn't required to handle the cpu microcode update. >> Both drivers use CMH to load the firmware which removes the need for udev to do >> anything. Admittedly maybe I've missed some odd use case but I don't think it >> is necessary. > > OK, so I guess the CMH still need uevent to get notified, right? The code as it is _currently_ written does not use uevents to load the processor firmware. ie) call_usermodehelper does not need uevent to get notified, so I think FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG is correct. P.