Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756575Ab3ILUgt (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:36:49 -0400 Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:53609 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754231Ab3ILUgs (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:36:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:36:33 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Ming Lei , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: Be a bit more verbose about direct firmware loading failure Message-ID: <20130912203633.GC8619@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1378496168-3684-1-git-send-email-nhorman@tuxdriver.com> <20130911141943.GA3181@neilslaptop.think-freely.org> <20130912131655.GA8619@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20130912184630.GA15948@khazad-dum.debian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130912184630.GA15948@khazad-dum.debian.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1623 Lines: 34 On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:46:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote: > > Both of these execptions should be rare, and are something the administrator > > will want to know about, so as not to confuse the real error with the mystery > > -ENOENT you would get if you fell back to the user mode helepr and it wansn't > > configured on in the running kernel. > > Except, of course, for Intel processor microcode updates, which are going to > cause ENOENT on a large number of systems. > > This will generate a large number of questions by users on the distro MLs. > > However, IMHO this is *not* a reason to refuse this patch series. If > anything, at least for Debian I will use it as an opportunity to educate > people about the existence of microcode update packages in "non-free". > I agree. If people are running with downlevel microcode, they shold know about it. You can't expect request_firmware to fail silently. If people complain, I think the right solution would be to add a test to the microcode_request_fw function to check for the existence of the file before requesting it. Neil > -- > "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring > them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond > where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot > Henrique Holschuh > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/