On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 kilg...@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote: > > Nonsense. It's simply a matter of how you create your workqueue. In > > the code you sent me, you call create_workqueue(). Instead, just call > > create_singlethread_workqueue(). Or maybe even > > create_freezeable_workqueue(). > > > > Alan Stern > > > > OK, seems one way out, might even work. I will definitely try that. > > Update. I did try it. > > No it does not work, sorry. :/
Again, nonsense. Of course it works. It causes the kernel to create only one workqueue thread instead of two. That's what it's supposed to do -- it was never intended to fix your oops. > While you have this matter on your mind, I am curious about the following: > > As the code for the sq905 module evolved through various stages, the > only occasion on which any real trouble arose was at the end, when we put > in the mutex locks which you can see in the code now. Before they were put > in, these problems which we are discussing now did not occur. > Specifically, there was not any such problem about an oops caused by > camera removal until the mutex locks were put in the code. And I strongly > suspect -- nay, I am almost certain -- that with that the same code you > are looking at now, the oops would go away if all those mutex locks were > simply commented out and the code re-compiled and reinstalled. Can you > explain this? I am just curious about why. You're wrong, the oops would not go away. It would just become a lot less likely to occur -- and thereby all the more insidious. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
