On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 08:16:29AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: > > > Sorry, I am a bit confused now. What is the consensus here: > > > > > > a) add a comment to _request_firmware() as in this patch #1 v5 > > > > The adding a comment note from Daniel was that the UMH lock is *not* > > needed on the direct firmware loading case, he's lazy to remove it > > now so he'll just add a comment. > > IIRC, we hadn't really settle on what the right solution is or I couldn't > parse it. That is why I am asking specifically which version is the right > thing. Don't worry I don't want to shortcut here :)
The removal of the lock from the general case is the right thing, I however wanted Ming to also acknowledge this change, I suppose he can do so if you supply a respin, or you can wait. Luis
