On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:06 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> > > that there is a down()
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> > that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
> > does indeed remove an
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
> does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
> entire routine, marked with what the patch
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
entire routine, marked with what the patch
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
does indeed remove an
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:06 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
that there is a down() earlier in the
On 12/18/2007 05:10 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
> Geoff Levand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
>> > The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
>> > initialized
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:10 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> is correct. Although not exactly a thing of beauty.
This isn't the worst I've seen ;( .. Do you think the ending should fall
through instead of having two returns?
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
Geoff Levand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
> > The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
> > initialized
> > with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
Geoff Levand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
initialized
with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:10 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
is correct. Although not exactly a thing of beauty.
This isn't the worst I've seen ;( .. Do you think the ending should fall
through instead of having two returns?
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 12/18/2007 05:10 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
Geoff Levand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
initialized
with
> This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
> The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
> initialized
> with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
>
This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even
initialized
with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
16 matches
Mail list logo