On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovet...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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.
Will, Vinod is the slave DMA subsystem maintainer, I hope he could shed a light on your concerns. Actually, does it work as expected if you didn't run modprobe -r ? > 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. Guennadi, anyway, thanks for your opinion. Vinod, have you chance to try last patch? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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/
