Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765422AbXJSQxg (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:53:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757711AbXJSQxa (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:53:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43457 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752464AbXJSQx3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:53:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0700 From: Pete Zaitcev To: "Vitaliy Ivanov" Cc: w@1wt.eu, gregkh@suse.de, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zaitcev@redhat.com Subject: Re: [2.4 patch] Port of adutux driver from 2.6 kernel to 2.4. Message-Id: <20071019095313.76990765.zaitcev@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <35fbaa3e0710190826uae4e7b7u7d8f3139e1697030@mail.gmail.com> References: <1192383445.8372.18.camel@dell1.softservecom.com> <20071014182542.GA2832@1wt.eu> <35fbaa3e0710141345w484b941em831282cf0d49b5c@mail.gmail.com> <20071014223921.GA4677@1wt.eu> <1192542889.29039.66.camel@dell1.softservecom.com> <20071016154138.GA23326@1wt.eu> <1192559051.29039.139.camel@dell1.softservecom.com> <1192644776.10761.60.camel@dell1.softservecom.com> <35fbaa3e0710190826uae4e7b7u7d8f3139e1697030@mail.gmail.com> Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1005 Lines: 23 On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:26:35 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" wrote: > Didn't here anything on this? What is our final decision here? It's gotten worse, not better. Apparently, you aren't getting the concept of protecting the open count with a static lock and my explanations are just not vivid enough or something. So I decided to fix it myself. Maybe then the patch in C will explain it better than English. But I didn't have time to do it. Also, there's an outright bug in the latest version. Your purge of the wrong lock was incomplete and so there was an unbalanced up(). But this is moot. So, the version before the latest is borderline acceptable. If Willy wants to take it, it's fine. I'll fix it up later together with 2.6. -- Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/