lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-02-13 20:43    [W:2.832 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site