On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:20:05 -0500, "Doug Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan, it looks like this is an outright bug in the 2.4 code because
> in different calls to spin_lock functions, the same spinlock_t
> structure element is passed by value and then later by reference.
This happens w
On Fri, February 03, 2006 Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Doug Sutherland wrote:
>> I've been looking at the differences between
>> the 2.4 and 2.6 gadget serial drivers and there >> don't appear to be that
>> many significant
>> differences (outside of the new support for the >> CDC-
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> I've been looking at the differences between the 2.4 and 2.6 gadget
> serial drivers and there don't appear to be that many significant
> differences (outside of the new support for the CDC-ACM). There are a
> few TTY functions that aren't included in 2
On Monday 23 January 2006 1:12 pm, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> We would also like
> to know what issues are involved in backporting this code from 2.6 to
> 2.4.
On Monday, January 23, 2006 5:17 pm, David Brownell wrote:
>I think the TTY layer changed enough to make a whole-driver backport
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:12:57 -0500, "Doug Sutherland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Due to hardware and support issues, we are not able to upgrade
> to Linux 2.6 at this time.
I knew someone would fall into that funnel eventually. Oh, brother.
I disclaim the responsibility for the gadget c
