On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 10:33:55AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Regarding devio.c, specifically proc_ioctl().
> > How is it ensured that the ps->dev pointer stays valid although the memory
> > allocations might sleep ?
>
> That's a good question, but it's not relevant to the __MOD_* change
> that I posted :)
>
> So you don't have a problem with the patch?
No. If it's a bug, it's a bug without the patch and with the patch.
IMHO you should apply the patch.
I just noticed it looking at that code.
> In looking at the devio code some more, there are a few places that some
> kind of locking needs to be added to protect from sleep races. devio.c
> is still on my list of things that needs to be revisited (I thought I
> would let the inode.c rewrite settle down first.)
As you like it. However the bug probably is present in 2.4, too.
Regards
Oliver
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
