MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161110191836.GB4775@kroah.com>
References: <20161030145048.6291-1-corsac@corsac.net> <20161030145048.6291-2-corsac@corsac.net>
 <20161109203921.GH13978@wotan.suse.de> <20161110155511.GA10806@kroah.com>
 <CAB=NE6XBdwe7o5MKHEiNHwNVfRZ39FREwyz1gNoFXoqf=J8qYw@mail.gmail.com> <20161110191836.GB4775@kroah.com>
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:49:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6UHWvk-ReSfKYzRtex8GreJjpGMsp4_-TLBDBme0=hEDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: fix async/manual firmware loading
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@corsac.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>,
        Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Harald Hoyer <harald@redhat.com>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>, "4.2+" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 960
Lines: 20

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 08:07:58AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >  It shouldn't be hard to figure out if a patch should be in stable or not...
>>
>> Well with the only caveat now that I am suggesting we consider remove
>> this logic completely as only 2 drivers were using it explicitly
>> (second argument to request_firmware_nowait() set to false), it seems
>> they had good reasons for it but ... this has been broken for ages and
>> we seem to be happy to compartamentalize the UMH further, its unclear
>> why we would want to expand and "fix" that instead of just removing
>> crap that never worked. Thoughts?
>
> Why would you want to remove stuff that works and people rely on?  Don't
> be foolish, you know we can't do that...

I was not advocating removing it if it had worked, I advocated
removing it if it truly was something that never worked.

 Luis