From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263076AbTJUMof (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263083AbTJUMof (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:35 -0400 Received: from cable98.usuarios.retecal.es ([212.22.32.98]:47264 "EHLO hell.lnx.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263076AbTJUMoe (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:44:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:44:20 +0200 From: Manuel Estrada Sainz To: Andrew Morton Cc: hunold@convergence.de, marcel@holtmann.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Proposal to remove workqueue usage from request_firmware_async() Message-ID: <20031021124420.GA19308@ranty.pantax.net> Reply-To: ranty@debian.org References: <20031020235355.GA3068@ranty.pantax.net> <20031020170804.2117d9ca.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031020170804.2117d9ca.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 05:08:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Manuel Estrada Sainz wrote: > > > > How does this look? > > OK I guess. I assume it works? Yes, it works. Although I didn't do heavy testing and it is the first time I play with kernel threads durectly, so I may be doing something stupid. > > + daemonize("%s/%s", "firmware", fw_work->name); > > daemonize("firmware/%s", "fw_work->name); Dumb me, I'll resend with that. Regards Manuel -- --- Manuel Estrada Sainz ------------------------ ------------------- Let us have the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.