On 6/8/05, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:56:19AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 6/8/05, Abhay Salunke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ fw_setup_class_device(struct firmware *f
> > > printk(KERN_ERR "%s: class_device_create_file failed\n",
> > > __FUNCTION__);
> > > goto error_unreg;
> > > +r
> >
> > What is this?
>
> Proof he didn't test the code :(
>
> > I think it would be better if you just have request_firmware and
> > request_firmware_nowait accept timeout parameter that would override
> > default timeout in firmware_class. 0 would mean use default,
> > MAX_SCHED_TIMEOUT - wait indefinitely.
>
> Yes and no. Yes in that we should have a timeout value. No in that 0
> should be "forever" and we #define the current 10 second value.
>
Are you saying that we should rip out of the firmware_class current
timeout attribute? I thought it was a nice to have system-wide defult
that can be adjusted by operator w/o need to recompile anything.
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
