Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751592AbdFGM1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:27:23 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:6071 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481AbdFGM0F (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2017 08:26:05 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,311,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="111968042" Message-ID: <1496838351.5682.58.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: fix sending -ERESTARTSYS due to signal on fallback From: Alan Cox To: Dmitry Torokhov , Andy Lutomirski Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , "Theodore Ts'o" , Linux FS Devel , Stephen Boyd , "Li, Yi" , Peter Zijlstra , Jonathan Corbet , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Greg KH , "Fuzzey, Martin" , Linux API , Daniel Wagner , David Woodhouse , jewalt@lgsinnovations.com, rafal@milecki.pl, Arend Van Spriel , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , atull@opensource.altera.com, Moritz Fischer , Petr Mladek , Johannes Berg , Emmanuel Grumbach , Luca Coelho , Kalle Valo , Linus Torvalds , Kees Cook , AKASHI Takahiro , David Howells , Peter Jones , Hans de G oede , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 13:25:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20170607062515.GA23434@dtor-ws> References: <20170526194640.GS8951@wotan.suse.de> <20170526215518.GB40877@dtor-ws> <20170605202410.GQ8951@wotan.suse.de> <1496760796.5682.48.camel@linux.intel.com> <20170606164734.GB27288@wotan.suse.de> <20170606221151.ygoxqkwhhjsqw632@thunk.org> <20170607002237.GJ27288@wotan.suse.de> <20170607062515.GA23434@dtor-ws> Organization: Intel Corporation Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 467 Lines: 10 > What's wrong with saying that the only way to interrupt firmware > loading is to kill the process? So ctrl-c will no longer interrupt > it, but I do not think that ease of aborting firmware update is > primary goal here. I consider simple is good here. Agreed 100%. The user process did not ask for firmware load, it asked for an I/O operation. Semantically it should appear as if someone else did the firmware load and it just had to wait for it to happen. Alan