On 04/04/14 16:30, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:46:14PM +0300, Kristina Martšenko wrote: > >> Yes, I didn't find any interrupt handlers either, which is partially why >> I thought it was (probably) safe. > > What's the other part of why it was safe? Put that stuff in the > changelog. When we're reviewing patches we're always interested to know > if it's safe. :)
The other part was whether the code was allowed to sleep. I figured it probably was since it's only accessed from MTD callback functions and other drivers in drivers/mtd/devices/ also sleep in those functions (either by using mutexes or by calling schedule() directly). I didn't mention why I thought it was safe in the changelog because I thought maybe the reasons would seem too "obvious" to more experienced kernel developers. Should I test and resend the patch with a new changelog? Kristina _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
