On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 11:10:46AM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Get rid of semaphore abuse by converting device_driver->unload_sem
> semaphore to device_driver->unloaded completion.
>
> This should get rid of any confusion as well as save a few bytes in the
> process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 11:10:46AM -0500, Mike Waychison wrote:
Get rid of semaphore abuse by converting device_driver-unload_sem
semaphore to device_driver-unloaded completion.
This should get rid of any confusion as well as save a few bytes in the
process.
Signed-off-by: Mike Waychison
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).
> >
>
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> Let's clean up the spelling as well
>> - *Though, once that is done, we attempt to take @drv->unload_sem.
>> + *Though, once that is done, we wait until @drv->unloaded is
>> copmleted.
>
>
Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
Mike Waychison wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Let's clean up the spelling as well
- *Though, once that is done, we attempt to take @drv-unload_sem.
+ *Though, once that is done, we wait until @drv-unloaded is
copmleted.
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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
>>- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
> - the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
> bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
>
> Please apply.
No,
* Jirka Kosina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
> - the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
> bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
Re-read the comment. It's intentionally done that
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
Please apply.
--- linux-2.6.11-rc2/drivers/base/driver.c.old 2005-01-22 02:48:48.0
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
Please apply.
--- linux-2.6.11-rc2/drivers/base/driver.c.old 2005-01-22 02:48:48.0
* Jirka Kosina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
Re-read the comment. It's intentionally done that way.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
bus_remove_driver() is called outside critical section.
Please apply.
No, please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Jirka Kosina wrote:
Hi,
there has been (for quite some time) a bug in function driver_unregister()
- the lock/unlock sequence is protecting nothing and the actual
bus_remove_driver() is
20 matches
Mail list logo
