Эпичный срач на LKML, Торвальдс жырно негодует. Для Ъ, мнение патриарха обозначено в теме сообщения.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/484
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org> wrote:
>
> Nothing really «breaks», It's «slow» and it will surely be fixed when
> we know what's the right fix, which we haven't sorted out at this
> moment.
A thirty-second pause at bootup is easily long enough that some people might think the machine is hung.
I also call bullshit on your «it will surely be fixed when we know what's the right fix» excuses.
The fact is, you've spent the last several months blaming everybody but yourself, and actively told people to stop blaming you:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827538#c12
and have ignored patches that were sent to you:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006357.html
despite having clearly seen the patch (you *replied* to it, for chissake, and I even told you in that same thread why that reply was wrong at the time).
> I also have no issues at all if the kernel does load the firmware from
> the filesystem on its own; it sounds like the simplest and most robust
> solution from a general look at the problem. It would also make the
> difference between in-kernel firmware and out-of-kernel firmware less
> visible, which sounds good.
So now, after you've dismissed the patch that did the equivalent fix in udev (Ming Lei's patch basically disabled your idiotic and wrong sequence number test for firmware loading), you say it's ok to bypass udev entirely, because that is «more robust».
Kay, you are so full of sh*t that it's not funny. You're refusing to acknowledge your bugs, you refuse to fix them even when a patch is sent to you, and then you make excuses for the fact that we have to work around *your* bugs, and say that we should have done so from the very beginning.
Yes, doing it in the kernel is «more robust». But don't play games, and stop the lying. It's more robust because we have maintainers that care, and because we know that regressions are not something we can play fast and loose with. If something breaks, and we don't know what the right fix for that breakage is, we *revert* the thing that broke.
So yes, we're clearly better off doing it in the kernel.
Not because firmware loading cannot be done in user space. But simply because udev maintenance since Greg gave it up has gone downhill.
Linus
Плевок в рожу Леннарта: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303
> I basically tried a few different approaches, including deferred probe(),
> as you suggested, and request_firmware_async(), as Kay suggested.
Stop this crazy. FIX UDEV ALREADY, DAMMIT.
Who maintains udev these days? Is it Lennart/Kai, as part of systemd?
Lennart/Kai, fix the udev regression already. Lennart was the one who brought up kernel ABI regressions at some conference, and if you now you have the *gall* to break udev in an incompatible manner that requires basically impossible kernel changes for the kernel to «fix» the udev interface, I don't know what to say.
«Two-faced lying weasel» would be the most polite thing I could say. But it almost certainly will involve a lot of cursing.
Жира много, наслаждайтесь, вот ветка целиком: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/194
