lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    DateTue, 18 Mar 2008 21:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
    FromLinus Torvalds <>
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.25-rc4
    
    On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
    > 
    > Your patch is more robust and we should go with it
    > (and thanks for fixing this bug!).
    
    Ok, I committed the patch as-is, since it's what Anders tested, but I'm 
    not at all convinced that it is necessarily the best or final form. The 
    things I am aware of but didn't think about all *that* deeply:
    
     - do we get return values etc right (ie if we complete the command that 
       didn't give any data, how do we account the size of it?)
    
     - what about that remaining old unexpected case? I kept the "wait for it 
       with timeout" behaviour for the case that wasn't an issue here, but if 
       it really is a shared interrupt, that seems like it's going to always 
       reset the timeout to WAIT_WORSTCASE, which doesn't sound really right.
    
    so I think this particular bug is fixed and we should be better off, but 
    I'm definitely not claiming that the code shouldn't have people thinking 
    about improving it..
    
    			Linus
    
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-19 20:29    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008