On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 05:10:24PM -0500, John Cavan wrote:
> it is. The new scsi error stuff does mention that drivers must
> spinunlock/spinlock if it enables interrupts.
Okay, I guess it is safe then.
Tim.
*/
PGP signature
Tim Waugh wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:50:40PM -0500, John Cavan wrote:
>
> > [...] This patch unlocks, allows the lowlevel driver to do it's
> > probes, and then relocks. It could probably be more granular in the
> > parport_pc code, but my own home tests show it to be working fine.
>
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 09:50:40PM -0500, John Cavan wrote:
> [...] This patch unlocks, allows the lowlevel driver to do it's
> probes, and then relocks. It could probably be more granular in the
> parport_pc code, but my own home tests show it to be working fine.
Is that safe?
Also, what bit o
Jens Axboe wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more interesting to fix the reason the new error
> handling code dies with imm and ppa?
Yes it would... :o) I think I've got it here.
The new error handling code spinlocks the IRQ which cause the lowlevel
parport driver to choke. This patch unlocks, allows the
On Thu, Nov 16 2000, John Cavan wrote:
> > Similar to the imm patch, it's working for me.
> >
> > John
>
> Again... not all screwed up...
> patch -ur linux.clean/drivers/scsi/ppa.h linux.current/drivers/scsi/ppa.h
> --- linux.clean/drivers/scsi/ppa.hThu Sep 14 20:27:05 2000
> +++ linux.curre
5 matches
Mail list logo
