I'm get seriously confused. My driver works well under kernel-2.6.18
but not generates a single interrupt signal when works above
kernel-2.6.19.
Does anybody meet similar problems?
Sincerely
Yours, Lost Graden.
1,21. 2008
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel&
. My driver works well under kernel-2.6.18
but not generates a single interrupt signal when works above
kernel-2.6.19.
Does anybody meet similar problems?
Sincerely
Yours, Lost Graden.
1,21. 2008
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Of course, not looking at the sets upon a zero return is a fairly obvious
> > optimization as there is little point in doing so.
>
> No; a fairly obvious optimisation is to avoid calling FD_ZERO if you
> can clear the bits
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Jamie Lokier wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, not looking at the sets upon a zero return is a fairly obvious
optimization as there is little point in doing so.
No; a fairly obvious optimisation is to avoid calling FD_ZERO if you
can clear the bits
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (ii) The Linux man page only says
>
> RETURN VALUE
>On success, select and pselect return the number of
>descriptors contained in the descriptor sets, which may be
>zero if the timeout expires before anything
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(ii) The Linux man page only says
RETURN VALUE
On success, select and pselect return the number of
descriptors contained in the descriptor sets, which may be
zero if the timeout expires before anything interesting
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > In BSD, select() states that when a time out occurs, the bits passed to
> > select will not be altered. In Linux, which claims BSD compliancy for this
>
> Nope. BSD manual pages (the authentic ones anyway) say that the timeout value
> may well be
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
In BSD, select() states that when a time out occurs, the bits passed to
select will not be altered. In Linux, which claims BSD compliancy for this
Nope. BSD manual pages (the authentic ones anyway) say that the timeout value
may well be written
> > > main()
> > > {
> > >char *s;
> > >s = (char*)malloc(0);
> > >strcpy(s,"f");
> > >printf("%s\n",s);
> > > }
I rather suspect that the strcpy() scribbled over malloc()s record keeping
data. However, that memory was in the processes allowed address space so
it didn't
main()
{
char *s;
s = (char*)malloc(0);
strcpy(s,"f");
printf("%s\n",s);
}
I rather suspect that the strcpy() scribbled over malloc()s record keeping
data. However, that memory was in the processes allowed address space so
it didn't SIGSEGV. Now, when you
10 matches
Mail list logo
