on 03/04/2011 13:46 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> Mostly out of curiosity (but not only because of that) I wonder why the
> use_generic flag and two probing passes are needed in USB driver probing code.
> That is, why the standard approach of using different probing return values
> (e.g. BU
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 13:06:22 Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 03/04/2011 13:46 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> > Mostly out of curiosity (but not only because of that) I wonder why the
> > use_generic flag and two probing passes are needed in USB driver probing
> > code. That is, why the standard a
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:08:16 -0700 Freddie Cash wrote:
FC> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
wrote:
>>
>> I just committed a fix for a problem that might look like a deadlock.
>> With trociny@ patch and my last fix (to GEOM GATE and hastd) do you
>> still have any issues?
on 05/04/2011 14:21 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2011 13:06:22 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 03/04/2011 13:46 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>> Mostly out of curiosity (but not only because of that) I wonder why the
>>> use_generic flag and two probing passes are nee
On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:50:43 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> I believe that newbus already supports ordering of children on a bus.
>
> BTW, does USB have to pass anything from probe to attach?
Mostly only the driver info field. To avoid duplicate lookups.
> Duplicate lookup is of course not very n
on 05/04/2011 15:55 Hans Petter Selasky said the following:
> On Tuesday 05 April 2011 14:50:43 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>> I believe that newbus already supports ordering of children on a bus.
>>
>> BTW, does USB have to pass anything from probe to attach?
>
> Mostly only the driver info field. To
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:08:16 -0700 Freddie Cash wrote:
>
> FC> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I just committed a fix for a problem that might look like a deadlock.
> >> With trociny@ patch and my la
On 4/4/11 6:04 PM, Justin Hibbits wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
is there anyone here with enough gdb/kgdb source experience to know
what
we would need to put on the stack at fork_exit() to make it stop
when it
gets there?
not only is it annoying but it slows down d
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 4/4/11 6:04 PM, Justin Hibbits wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>>
>>> is there anyone here with enough gdb/kgdb source experience to know what
>>> we would need to put on the stack at fork_exit() to make i
On 4/5/11 1:35 PM, Navdeep Parhar wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 4/4/11 6:04 PM, Justin Hibbits wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
is there anyone here with enough gdb/kgdb source experience to know what
we would need to put on the stac
I was just looking in the thread creation code after most of a decade
NOT looking at it..
boy we really need to go through there with a broom.. the cobwebs are
getting thick.
Like we always call the code to put an upcall, even though we don't
have upcalls any more,
and we always create an trap
11 matches
Mail list logo