On Sunday 30 January 2005 18:21, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sunday 30 January 2005 03:41, Al Viro wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 12:25:10PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote: > > > I know. As I said, this is a problem I know about, and will be fixed. I > > > was mainly interested whether anyone sees further problems in scenarios > > > which don't include device addition/removal. > > > > > > We already fixed this in serio, and input and gameport are next in the > > > list. > > > > OK, I'll bite. What's to guarantee that no events will happen in > > the middle of serio_unregister_port(), right after we'd done > > serio_remove_pending_events()? > > At this point serio is disconnected from driver and serio_interrupt > will only queue rescans only if serio->registered. I guess I will need > to protect change to serio->registered and take serio->lock to be > completely in clear. >
Thinking about it some more - serio driver should take care of shutting off interrupt delivery either in ->close() or ->stop() methods so we don't really need to worry about having new events delivered here. -- Dmitry - 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/
