On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 11:19 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 08:27:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > Hmm.. I certainly like the "use completions" patch, since it makes it a > > lot more obvious what is going on (and it is what completions were > > designed for). > > > > However, since it does change semantics very subtly: if you call > > "driver_unregister()" twice (which is wrong, but looking at the code it > > looks like it would just silently have worked), the old code would just > > ignore it. The new code will block on the second one. > > > > Now, I don't mind the blocking (it's a bug to call it twice, and blocking > > should even give a nice callback when you do the "show tasks" sysrq, so > > it's a good way to _find_ the bug), but together with Mike's comment about > > "Compile-tested only", I'd really like somebody (Greg?) to say "trying to > > doubly remove the driver is so illegal that we don't care, and btw, I > > tested it and it's all ok". > > I will add it to my queue of patches for the driver core, and test it > out accordingly before trying it out in the -mm tree for a while. >
Exactly the same patch is around since 2004-10-20. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109836020930855&w=2 It never showed any problems and I have it in my kernels since then. Also Ingo's RT patches have it since October. tglx - 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/
