Hi all,
I have been trying the parallel port driver discussed in LDD 3rd edition
from last few days now but with no success. Every time i read from any of
the ports ( status, control or data ) I get 0xFF.
I did remove parport, parport_pc, lp, ppdev and the request_region() call is
also
i'm sure i'm misreading something, but when i look at the macro
definition of __list_for_each in list.h:
#define __list_for_each(pos, head) \
for (pos = (head)-next; pos != (head); pos = pos-next)
i could swear that this traversal will visit each node in the list
except for the
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Robert P. J. Day
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm sure i'm misreading something, but when i look at the macro
definition of __list_for_each in list.h:
#define __list_for_each(pos, head) \
for (pos = (head)-next; pos != (head); pos = pos-next)
i
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Robert P. J. Day
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm sure i'm misreading something, but when i look at the macro
definition of __list_for_each in list.h:
#define __list_for_each(pos, head) \
for (pos = (head)-next; pos != (head); pos = pos-next)
i
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Robert P. J. Day
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm sure i'm misreading something, but when i look at the macro
definition of __list_for_each in list.h:
#define __list_for_each(pos, head) \
for (pos =
after digging around in the linked list code, i'm more confident i
see what's happening, but now i have a new confusion. first, as an
earlier poster pointed out, all of the elements in a kernel linked
list are *not* equivalent -- each list has an additional data-free
entry (call it the head).
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 03:46 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
Linux kernel development - Robert Love has a nice detailed
explaination of it.
ironically, that's the very book i have open in front of me at the
moment and which is confusing me, since
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
... snip ...
an obvious fix is, once you do the splice, initialize that list
header to designate an empty list, and in fact, there's a list
function that does
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
... snip ...
an obvious fix is, once you do the splice, initialize that list
header to designate an empty list,
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
... snip ...
list_splice(d-fifo_list, packet_list);
list_splice(d-pending_list, packet_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(d-fifo_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(d-pending_list);
...
Interesting point Robert, I agree. However not
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Manish Katiyar wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Manish Katiyar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm after seeing the list_del(), I was wondering if after
splicing the list, what seems to be more reasonable.
Setting the prev and next pointers of head to NULL, or
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:35:48 -0700
ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hello,
my first question is exactly when should this macro be used?
i want to use it in one of my functions to assert that the spin lock
was acquired:
BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(dev-lock))
then i wanted to see what would
Jörn Engel wrote:
On Sat, 22 March 2008 23:55:53 +0800, Peter Teoh wrote:
Or do you want individual files/directories to be immutable - chattr?
chattr is not good enough, as root can still modify it. So if
current feature is not there, then some small development may be
needed.
And in
13 matches
Mail list logo
