On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:00:40AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Sarah Sharp [
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > > From: David Laight
> > > > From: David Laight
> ...
> > > > Below is a possible patch, I've only compile tested it.
> > > > I've minimalised t
From: Sarah Sharp [
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +, David Laight wrote:
> > From: David Laight
> > > From: David Laight
...
> > > Below is a possible patch, I've only compile tested it.
> > > I've minimalised the patch by not removing all the code that saves
> > > 'start_trb' and modif
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21:11AM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: David Laight
> > From: David Laight
> > > From: Alan Stern
> > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, David Laight wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have a theory, I'll try to write a non-invasive patch.
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't this mean you
From: David Laight
> From: David Laight
> > From: Alan Stern
> > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, David Laight wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a theory, I'll try to write a non-invasive patch.
> ...
> > >
> > > Doesn't this mean you shouldn't change the ownership of a LINK TRB
> > > until after you change the ow
From: David Laight
> From: Alan Stern
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > > I have a theory, I'll try to write a non-invasive patch.
...
> >
> > Doesn't this mean you shouldn't change the ownership of a LINK TRB
> > until after you change the ownership of the TRB it points to?
>
>
