On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:25 +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > This patch is wrong. usb_kill_urb() will sleep. You must not use it under > a spinlock. Whoops. Good catch. I'll have to analyse the logic with the lists being used here (and probably add a temporary list). Will try to get a new patch until tomorrow. [side note: how about adding might_sleep() to usb_kill_urb? Then I'd at least have noticed this right away] johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- From: Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- References:
- [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- From: Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- Prev by Date: 2.6.16-rc1: iptables broken on ppc32?
- Next by Date: Re: /proc/acpi/alarm -- does it work or not?
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] hci_usb: implement suspend/resume
- Index(es):