On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:16:20 +0100 Duncan Sands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:11 -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > I entered a patch which adds "exclusive_access" lock into 2.4.29,
> > to fix devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This
> > caused a regression with
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:16:20 +0100 Duncan Sands [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:11 -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
I entered a patch which adds exclusive_access lock into 2.4.29,
to fix devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This
caused a regression with European
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:11 -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> I entered a patch which adds "exclusive_access" lock into 2.4.29, to fix
> devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This caused a regression
> with European ADSL modems. An ioctl USBDEVFS_REAPURB allows a process to enter
> the
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 16:11 -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
I entered a patch which adds exclusive_access lock into 2.4.29, to fix
devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This caused a regression
with European ADSL modems. An ioctl USBDEVFS_REAPURB allows a process to enter
the kernel
I entered a patch which adds "exclusive_access" lock into 2.4.29, to fix
devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This caused a regression
with European ADSL modems. An ioctl USBDEVFS_REAPURB allows a process to enter
the kernel and wait for USB I/O to finish. Naturally, this should not
I entered a patch which adds exclusive_access lock into 2.4.29, to fix
devices which cannot handle simultaneous accesses. This caused a regression
with European ADSL modems. An ioctl USBDEVFS_REAPURB allows a process to enter
the kernel and wait for USB I/O to finish. Naturally, this should not
6 matches
Mail list logo