On Nov 6, 2007 9:33 PM, Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> > I'm afraid to be considered as spam ;)
> >
> > (Due to timezone offset, I have to mail again and cann't wait for your
> > reply, sorry for the annoying)
>
> I am in a different timezone every other week. So nevermind ;)
>
> > I think the rfcomm_dev_put could be seperated from the rfcomm_dev_put,
> > it will be more straitforward then.
> >
> > please consider below patch, tested on my side. thanks.
>
> That one looks totally wrong to me. Without even testing it, it will
> have side effects that you haven't run into yet. Unless the TTY core
> changed so much, this comments are there for a really good reason and
> the code is tested a lot.
What side effects?
Anyway, the refcnt is wrong in rfcomm_release_dev. We could either
remove the rfcomm_dev_del in rfcomm_tty_hangup or remove the
rfcomm_dev_put in the end of rfcomm_release_dev, or the rfcomm_dev
will be destructed, and the later callback of rfcomm_tty_close could
cause oops.
>
> Also if you have to do two rfcomm_dev_put() in a row, then we are doing
> something really wrong and this tries to hide a real bug somewhere.
One is for device deletion (1->0), one is for the get/put pairs,
actually same as before.
Main reason of doing so in this patch is that if I remove the last
rfcomm_dev_put in rfcomm_release_dev, then it looks like get device
<--> del device, so relace it with set deletion flag and then put
the device like "get device <--> put device" which is straitforward.
>
> Regards
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
-
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]
