On 10/21/2013 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Prarit Bhargava <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/21/2013 08:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Prarit Bhargava <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And why don't you pass FW_ACTION_HOTPLUG? and you are sure >>>>> that udev isn't required to handle your microcode update request? >>>>> >>>> >>>> AFAICT in both cases, udev wasn't required to handle the cpu microcode >>>> update. >>>> Both drivers use CMH to load the firmware which removes the need for udev >>>> to do >>>> anything. Admittedly maybe I've missed some odd use case but I don't >>>> think it >>>> is necessary. >>> >>> OK, so I guess the CMH still need uevent to get notified, right? >> >> The code as it is _currently_ written does not use uevents to load the >> processor >> firmware. ie) call_usermodehelper does not need uevent to get notified, so I >> think FW_ACTION_NOHOTPLUG is correct. > > You need to make sure your patch won't break userspace in old > distribution with your _currently_ code. >
AFAICT, Suse, Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Fedora all work with my changes. P. -- 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/
