Am Mittwoch, 3. September 2003 14:18 schrieb Martin Diehl:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > Am Dienstag, 2. September 2003 22:09 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > ChangeSet 1.1276.1.66, 2003/08/29 14:39:40-07:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > [PATCH] USB: usb-skeleton bugfix
> > >
> > >
> > > drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > >
> > > diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c b/drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c Tue Sep 2 12:42:26 2003
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c Tue Sep 2 12:42:26 2003
> > > @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@
> > > if (atomic_read (&dev->write_busy))
> > > wait_for_completion (&dev->write_finished);
> > >
> > > - dev->open = 0;
> > > + --dev->open;
> > >
> > > if (!dev->present) {
> > > /* the device was unplugged before the file was released */
> >
> > No, this is very wrong. This is a release() method. It does _not_ correspond
> > to close(). Decrementing the usage count is absolutely _wrong_.
> > Please revert ASAP.
>
> Aehm - are you really sure? I was always assuming what you say is true as
> far as it refers to "not every close(2) invokes fops->release", f.e. if a
> process has cloned fd's. However, if there are several process reading
> from the same file (chardev), I do still pretend we see nested
> fops->release calls!
>
> If you don't agree, would you mind to explain the dmesg-log below? ;-)
Good question. I was very sure. How can filecounters be increased?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
