Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:41:09 +0200 | From | Christian Kujau <> | Subject | Re: parport_pc Oops with 2.6.0-test3 |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > --- 25/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c~parport_pc-rmmod-oops-fix 2003-08-26 01:32:59.000000000 -0700 > +++ 25-akpm/drivers/parport/parport_pc.c 2003-08-26 01:33:08.000000000 -0700 > @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static struct superio_struct { /* For Su > int dma; > } superios[NR_SUPERIOS] __devinitdata = { {0,},}; > > -static int user_specified __devinitdata = 0; > +static int user_specified; > #if defined(CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO) || \ > (defined(CONFIG_PARPORT_1284) && defined(CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_FIFO)) > static int verbose_probing;
ah, that did it. now i get
parport0: PC-style at 0x378 (0x778), irq 7, using FIFO \ [PCSPP,TRISTATE,COMPAT,ECP] parport0: cpp_daisy: aa5500ff(38) parport0: assign_addrs: aa5500ff(38) parport0: cpp_daisy: aa5500ff(38) parport0: assign_addrs: aa5500ff(38)
upon loading of parport_pc and no oops when unloading (tried it several times, even with a tainted kernel.)
you know, even tiny patches like this (a single line changed!) look quite incredible to a non hacker (me). with this little bits of information i gave you, you produced a working patch. this is...totally cool, really.
Thank you very much, Christian. -- BOFH excuse #312:
incompatible bit-registration operators
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |