On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:11:07AM +0100, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 23:55 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 May 2013, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > When user interrupts ongoing transfers the dmatest may end up with > > > > console > > > > lockup, oops, or data mismatch. This patch prevents user to abort any > > > > ongoing > > > > test. > > > > > > Personally I would be against such a change. What about interrupting the > > > test with rmmod? > > > Is it still possible after this your patch or not? If not > > > - this doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Why don't we just fix those > > > bugs, that you're describing? > > > > The behaviour of the module is returned to the same page by this patch > > as it was before (w/o debugfs). > > > > The user can interrupt tests by rmmod, but it will take time up to > > timeout. > > > > I appreciate if you can do a deeper analysis of what happened in > > case Will reported. > > Did this query hold up the application of this patch? I'd really like to see > *something* in 3.10, otherwise dmatest will be broken.
Not from me, no. I just expressed a doubt, the author thinks there is no problem, and I have no capacity atm to try to verify it, so, my query shouldn't be considered a nak. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
