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