On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 09:17:15PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:15:41PM +0100, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 07:16:16AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote: > > > > > > > > a) just remove the print and use instead request_module_nowait() (this is > > > > more in alignment of what your code actually does today; or > > > > > > > > b) fix the request_module() use so that the error print matches the > > > > expected and proper recommended use of request_module() (what this patch > > > > does) > > > > > > > > I prefer a) actually but I had to show what b) looked like first :) > > > > > > Me too. Let's do the simple thing. After all, it's been working for 5 years > > > now (maybe more?) and I don't see a huge need to verify that the opmode > > > module has been loaded. It is very unlikely to fail anyway, and in the case > > > it did fail, it's not that we can do much from iwlwifi point of view. > > > > I tend to agree with you on this, retries would be the only sensible thing to > > do, but why do that -- the error should be logged right and addressed by any > > upper layers. Its one reason to consider in the future adding verifiers > > as built-in optional part of module loading. > > It would seem we still need to offload the opmode start as it is the one that > really should be issuing the completion, otherwise we would end up sending a > completion while the opmode module is being loaded asynchronously. The changes > are for that are still very likely desirable as it should help with speeding > boot up. > > So the sharing of the opcode start will go first. > > Will send v2. Actually the completion was always being sent prior to request_module(), so this would not change anything really. The sharing of the opcode then is optional, and I can send separately in another series. Luis
