From: "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:23:44 -0800 > The only testing that we were not able to do was the IPMI testing, > because of the lack of resources. All other testing passed. > > While all other testing passed, I am concerned about not being able to > test whether or not this change affects the ability to pass IPMI > traffic. I am not sure if the "gain" of using request_firmware() out > weighs the potential risk that IPMI traffic may be broken with this > patch. I guess I wondering what the gain is in using the > request_firmware() function? > > >From past experience with IPMI traffic and the e100, the loading of > the microcode in the correct manner greatly affected whether IPMI > traffic would pass or not. Jeff, I've lost all of my patience. All drivers are being converted this way. I fought against doing it to tg3 for various reasons, but the tide worked against me and I accepted that. We can't hold this patch up forever for a potential problem that you don't have the resources to even test for more than a week. I'm therefore adding this patch, and we'll fix or revert if the "possible" IPMI problems do surface. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
