> > 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.
Probably I'm not trying to do what you want. I analyzed locks for other
usb drivers in 2.4 tree and used same ideas.
Static lock minor_table_mutex is used for minor table structure.
And dev->sem for dev manipulations and that's why for open_count.
If you will simply browse /drivers/usb dir for 2.4 you will see that
such approach is widely used there.
What's not right?
Certainly, you have more experience so I can't say that I'm right.
> 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.
Yes, got it. It's up for minor_table_mutex in adu_release. Corrected.
> 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.
Let's do everything correctly for 2.4.
V.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
