Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761876AbYGOS6u (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:58:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755093AbYGOS6n (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:58:43 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.org ([69.25.196.31]:49372 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754957AbYGOS6m (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:58:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:58:01 -0400 From: Theodore Tso To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Linus Torvalds , david@lang.hm, Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT *] Allow request_firmware() to be satisfied from in-kernel, use it in more drivers. Message-ID: <20080715185801.GH8185@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Tso , Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , david@lang.hm, Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , David Woodhouse , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <487C585C.2060002@garzik.org> <487CD7FE.9010209@garzik.org> <487CDEC0.3090004@garzik.org> <487CEA73.9000408@garzik.org> <487CF01E.6000208@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <487CF01E.6000208@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1236 Lines: 33 On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 02:44:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > All of the regressions examples I am citing are cured by > firmware-in-module, because they are all examples of problems that occur > when you remove the ability to reproduce the same functional pieces as > 2.6.26. Jeff, I think you've said this before, but let me try to help you cut to the chase. You are willing to *implement* firmware-in-the-module for request_firmware(), but you want a commitment that David Woodhouse and Linus will accept such a patch before you go off and write it. Is that right? If so, may I suggest you start implementing, instead of sending e-mails? For all the time people have spent arguing about it, maybe it could have been implemented already. Once it has been implemented, do you have any further objections aka ideas about how request_firmware() could be improved? - Ted (who is hoping we can guide this thread onto slightly more productive avenues) -- 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/