On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:02:34 -0700
"Nelson, Shannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tested this in my ioatdma setup and no longer get the panic. I'm good with
> this if you two are happy with it.
Looks good to me too, although I haven't had a chance to test it yet.
Thanks,
Håvard
-
To
>From: Williams, Dan J
>On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
>> Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > @@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
>> > {
>> > struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref,
From: Williams, Dan J
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
{
struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref, struct
dma_chan,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:02:34 -0700
Nelson, Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tested this in my ioatdma setup and no longer get the panic. I'm good with
this if you two are happy with it.
Looks good to me too, although I haven't had a chance to test it yet.
Thanks,
Håvard
-
To unsubscribe
On 10/27/07, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
> > Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
> > > {
> > > struct
On 10/27/07, Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
{
struct dma_chan *chan =
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
> Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
> > {
> > struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref, struct dma_chan, refcount);
>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
> {
> struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref, struct dma_chan, refcount);
> chan->device->device_free_chan_resources(chan);
> -
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
{
struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref, struct dma_chan, refcount);
chan-device-device_free_chan_resources(chan);
-
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 06:49 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700
Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -221,7 +220,6 @@ void dma_chan_cleanup(struct kref *kref)
{
struct dma_chan *chan = container_of(kref, struct dma_chan, refcount);
>-Original Message-
>From: Nelson, Shannon
>Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:00 AM
>To: 'Haavard Skinnemoen'
>Cc: Williams, Dan J; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [PATCH] DMA: Fix broken device refcounting
>
>--
>
>When a
>From: Haavard Skinnemoen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When a DMA device is unregistered, its reference count is decremented
>twice for each channel: Once dma_class_dev_release() and once in
>dma_chan_cleanup(). This may result in the DMA device driver's
>remove() function completing before all
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 09:12 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the correct way to solve it, but it seems to
> work. The remove() function does not hang, which indicates that the
> device's reference count does drop all the way to zero on
> unregistration, which in turn
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 09:12 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the correct way to solve it, but it seems to
work. The remove() function does not hang, which indicates that the
device's reference count does drop all the way to zero on
unregistration, which in turn
From: Haavard Skinnemoen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When a DMA device is unregistered, its reference count is decremented
twice for each channel: Once dma_class_dev_release() and once in
dma_chan_cleanup(). This may result in the DMA device driver's
remove() function completing before all
-Original Message-
From: Nelson, Shannon
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:00 AM
To: 'Haavard Skinnemoen'
Cc: Williams, Dan J; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [PATCH] DMA: Fix broken device refcounting
--
When a channel is removed from dmaengine, too many
16 matches
Mail list logo