At Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:56:58 -0400,
Lee Revell wrote:
>
> [added alsa-devel to cc:]
>
> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:26 -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > I think these are all real bugs.
> >
> > sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
> > snd_assert will return without unlocking
[added alsa-devel to cc:]
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:26 -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
> I think these are all real bugs.
>
> sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
> snd_assert will return without unlocking emu->voice_lock (line 89)
This one is probably a real bug.
Lee
-
To
[added alsa-devel to cc:]
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:26 -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
I think these are all real bugs.
sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
snd_assert will return without unlocking emu-voice_lock (line 89)
This one is probably a real bug.
Lee
-
To
At Wed, 24 Aug 2005 11:56:58 -0400,
Lee Revell wrote:
[added alsa-devel to cc:]
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 15:26 -0700, Ted Unangst wrote:
I think these are all real bugs.
sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
snd_assert will return without unlocking emu-voice_lock
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:30 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:54:03 +0200
>
> > does it matter? can ANYTHING be spinning on the lock? if not .. can we
> > just let the lock go poof and not unlock it...
>
> I believe socket
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: some missing spin_unlocks
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:40:06 +0200
> On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:30 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:54:03 +020
> This one needs more care. We can't drop the lock, because
> the destroy actions need to be protected by that lock, but
> we can't release the lock after rose_destroy_socket() because
> the object may not even exist any longer.
does it matter? can ANYTHING be spinning on the lock? if not ..
From: Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:26:47 -0700
> net/rose/rose_route.c rose_route_frame, line 998
> returns without unlocking rose_node_list_lock, rose_neigh_list_lock, or
> rose_route_list_lock
I fixed this one with the patch below.
> net/rose/rose_timer.c
From: Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:26:47 -0700
net/rose/rose_route.c rose_route_frame, line 998
returns without unlocking rose_node_list_lock, rose_neigh_list_lock, or
rose_route_list_lock
I fixed this one with the patch below.
net/rose/rose_timer.c
This one needs more care. We can't drop the lock, because
the destroy actions need to be protected by that lock, but
we can't release the lock after rose_destroy_socket() because
the object may not even exist any longer.
does it matter? can ANYTHING be spinning on the lock? if not .. can
From: Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: some missing spin_unlocks
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:40:06 +0200
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:30 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
From: Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:54:03 +0200
does it matter? can ANYTHING
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 10:30 -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
From: Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:54:03 +0200
does it matter? can ANYTHING be spinning on the lock? if not .. can we
just let the lock go poof and not unlock it...
I believe socket lookup can,
I think these are all real bugs.
sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
snd_assert will return without unlocking emu->voice_lock (line 89)
sound/pci/au88x0/au88x0_core.c vortex_adb_allocroute, search for EBUSY
returns without unlocking vortex->lock
net/rose/rose_route.c
I think these are all real bugs.
sound/synth/emux/emux_synth.c snd_emux_note_on, line 101
snd_assert will return without unlocking emu-voice_lock (line 89)
sound/pci/au88x0/au88x0_core.c vortex_adb_allocroute, search for EBUSY
returns without unlocking vortex-lock
net/rose/rose_route.c
14 matches
Mail list logo
