On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:16:10 +0800
Xiao Jin wrote:
> From: xiaojin
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
>
> All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock,
> that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:13:07 +
"Xiao, Jin" wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm->output is called
> by gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock...
That would be a bug too or I guess we could finally give in on trying to
keep tty write paths not
Alan,
Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm->output is called by
gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock...
Best regards,
Jin Xiao
> From: xiaojin
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
>
> A
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:38:40 +0800
Xiao Jin wrote:
> From: xiaojin
> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
>
> All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock,
> that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:38:40 +0800
Xiao Jin jin.x...@intel.com wrote:
From: xiaojin jin.x...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm-output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level
Alan,
Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm-output is called by
gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock...
Best regards,
Jin Xiao
From: xiaojin jin.x...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:13:07 +
Xiao, Jin jin.x...@intel.com wrote:
Alan,
Thanks. But the comment makes me confused. As we see, gsm-output is called
by gsm_data_kick too, and it's in the tx_lock...
That would be a bug too or I guess we could finally give in on trying to
keep tty write
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:16:10 +0800
Xiao Jin jin.x...@intel.com wrote:
From: xiaojin jin.x...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm-output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level
From: xiaojin
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
we have no tx_lock in gsm_send.
This patch is to add tx_lock in gsm_send.
Signed-
From: xiaojin
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm->output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
we have no tx_lock in gsm_send.
This patch is to add tx_lock in gsm_send.
Signed-
From: xiaojin jin.x...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm-output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
we have no tx_lock in gsm_send.
This patch is to add tx_lock
From: xiaojin jin.x...@intel.com
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:53:43 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] n_gsm.c: add tx_lock in gsm_send
All the call to gsm-output should be in the tx_lock,
that could avoid potential race from MUX level. But
we have no tx_lock in gsm_send.
This patch is to add tx_lock
12 matches
Mail list logo