On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:56:39AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:46:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > Both of these execptions should be rare, and
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:46:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > Both of these execptions should be rare, and are something the
> > > administrator
> > > will want to know about, so as not to co
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 03:46:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> > Both of these execptions should be rare, and are something the administrator
> > will want to know about, so as not to confuse the real error with the
> > mystery
> > -ENOENT
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Neil Horman wrote:
> Both of these execptions should be rare, and are something the administrator
> will want to know about, so as not to confuse the real error with the mystery
> -ENOENT you would get if you fell back to the user mode helepr and it wansn't
> configured on in t
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:30:59PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >>
> > Please re-read the patch, then point out to me which printk the above action
> > will trigger, because its not happening in my testing. If you'll take a
> > look at
> > fw_get_
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>
> Please re-read the patch, then point out to me which printk the above action
> will trigger, because its not happening in my testing. If you'll take a look
> at
> fw_get_filesystem_firmware, you'll see that if the filp_open on a firmware
>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:25:58AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:54:28PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> > The direct firmware loading interface is a bit quiet about
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:54:28PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> > The direct firmware loading interface is a bit quiet about failures.
>> > Failures
>>
>> Because there are several pre-defi
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:54:28PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> > The direct firmware loading interface is a bit quiet about failures.
> > Failures
>
> Because there are several pre-defined search paths, and generally the
> requested firmware onl
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> The direct firmware loading interface is a bit quiet about failures. Failures
Because there are several pre-defined search paths, and generally the
requested firmware only exists in one of these paths.
> that occur during loading are masked i
The direct firmware loading interface is a bit quiet about failures. Failures
that occur during loading are masked if firmware exists in multiple locations,
and may be masked entirely in the event that we fall back to the user mode
helper code. It would be nice to see some of the more unexpected
11 matches
Mail list logo
