[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130213184700.GA15633@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:47:00 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc: giometti@...ux.it, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, peter@...leysoftware.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] pps: Use a single cdev
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:35:29PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
> > You forgot a Signed-off-by: line for this patch, so I can't apply it, or
> > the 9/9 patch :(
>
> Oops, fixed. I don't see why the 9/9 patch depends on it,
> though. They're not related or interdependent in any way.
>
> If you want to check the logic, I'd appreciate it. I'm not
> really sure about the RCU stuff. My understanding is that:
> - the idr code does the appropriate write locking when
> modifying itself, so I don't need to do any.
> - The pps_device returned from idr_find is itself refcounted,
> so it can't go away, and the accesses don't have bo be
> inside the RCU read "lock". It's only the IDR's internal
> index nodes that might get reallocated by modificaitons of
> a different part of the tree.
>
> > Care to resend just these two after fixing this up?
>
> I can, but if you think you need 9/9 resent (which *did* have a S-o-b),
> I'm confused and wonder why...
I stopped at that point in the series, that's the only reason why, I
didn't "check" to see if there was a dependancy, I just assumed there
was...
So please resend, thanks.
greg k-h
--
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