[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803121521550.3557@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Subject: Re: pcibios_scanned needs to be set in ACPI? (was Re: 2.6.25-rc5:
Reported regressions from 2.6.24)
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Actually, here's a simple patch from -next that should test this logic
> for you. Can you let me know if this solves the start up WARNING dump
> for you?
This patch looks bogus.
Why do you introduce a "dev->is_added" field that apparently has to match
the old "list_empty(&dev->global_list)" 1:1 anyway?
In other words: when is it *ever* permissible for "is_added" to have a
different value from the "list_empty(..)" logic? And if they must always
match (and it looks like they have to, since you set and clear the flag
exactly when you add/remove it from the list), then what exactly is this
supposed to fix?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists