Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-25 Thread Pete Zaitcev
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:44:42 -0800 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except that you forgot to initialise the semaphore. > > > > Now actually with a patch for 2.4. > > How about a patch for 2.6? > greg k-h I'm not up to speed with 2.6, however try the attached forward port, please. --

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-25 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 11:53:13AM -0800, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:35 +0100 > Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Except that you forgot to initialise the semaphore. > > Now actually with a patch for 2.4. How about a patch for 2.6? thanks, greg k-h -

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-19 Thread Oliver Neukum
Am Friday 19 March 2004 18:53 schrieb Pete Zaitcev: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:14:56 +0100 > Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > open() is (for char devices) still called under BKL, so this is > > just uselessly eating cycles. And, more importantly, locking > > is not thought through. It

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-19 Thread Oliver Neukum
Am Friday 19 March 2004 20:52 schrieb Pete Zaitcev: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:35 +0100 > Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What do you think about the attached patch? > > > > Much, much better :-) > > Except that you forgot to initialise the semaphore. > > You are right. I suppo

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-19 Thread Pete Zaitcev
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:35 +0100 Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do you think about the attached patch? > > Much, much better :-) > Except that you forgot to initialise the semaphore. You are right. I suppose just replacing it with DECLARE_MUTEX ought to do the trick. I take

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-19 Thread Pete Zaitcev
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:10:35 +0100 Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that you forgot to initialise the semaphore. Now actually with a patch for 2.4. --- linux-2.4.26-pre2/drivers/usb/printer.c 2004-02-26 14:09:58.0 -0800 +++ linux-2.4.26-pre2-nip/drivers/usb/printer.c

Re: [linux-usb-devel] usblp needlessly taking BKL

2004-03-19 Thread Pete Zaitcev
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:14:56 +0100 Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > open() is (for char devices) still called under BKL, so this is > just uselessly eating cycles. And, more importantly, locking > is not thought through. It is correct by accident currently. I wouldn't touch it before a