On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:34:00 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:23:21PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:11:09 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > Please, review the v3 of "Fix
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:23:21PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:11:09 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > Please, review the v3 of "Fix memory freeing issues" patch (first in the
> > > series I posted
On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:11:09 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > Please, review the v3 of "Fix memory freeing issues" patch (first in the
> > series I posted yesterday) and ignore the second, as we haven't agreed
> > on it.
>
> I can
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
>
> Please, review the v3 of "Fix memory freeing issues" patch (first in the
> series I posted yesterday) and ignore the second, as we haven't agreed
> on it.
>
I can't find a v3. Please resend it.
Thanks,
Hans
--
To unsubscr
On Tuesday 11 December 2012 00:37:59 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:24:04PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > > Hi Vitalii,
> > > > > thanks a lot for analyzing the problem so thoroughly. It made me
> > > > > review uio_pdrv_genirq.c again, and I noticed several issues and
>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:24:04PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > Hi Vitalii,
> > > > thanks a lot for analyzing the problem so thoroughly. It made me review
> > > > uio_pdrv_genirq.c again, and I noticed several issues and came to the
> > > > following conclusions:
> > > >
> > > > 1.) pri
On Monday 10 December 2012 11:52:18 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:03:59AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > On Saturday 08 December 2012 01:47:21 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 05:00:54PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > > On second thought, we can't c
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:03:59AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> On Saturday 08 December 2012 01:47:21 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 05:00:54PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > On second thought, we can't call enable_irq()/disable_irq()
> > > > unconditionally because o
On Saturday 08 December 2012 01:47:21 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 05:00:54PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > On second thought, we can't call enable_irq()/disable_irq()
> > > unconditionally because of the potential disable counter
> > > (irq_desc->depth) disbalance. That's
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 05:00:54PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> >
> > On second thought, we can't call enable_irq()/disable_irq() unconditionally
> > because of the potential disable counter (irq_desc->depth) disbalance.
> > That's why we need UIO_IRQ_DISABLED flag, and that's why we should ch
On Friday 07 December 2012 15:51:02 Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2012 11:41:45 Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > On Friday 07 December 2012 00:15:59 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:11:38AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 06 December 2012 04:41
On Friday 07 December 2012 11:41:45 Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2012 00:15:59 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:11:38AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > > On Thursday 06 December 2012 04:41:01 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > > > @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ static irqreturn_
On Friday 07 December 2012 00:15:59 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:11:38AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 December 2012 04:41:01 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > > @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ static irqreturn_t uio_pdrv_genirq_handler(int irq,
> >
> > struct uio_info *dev_info)
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:11:38AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> On Thursday 06 December 2012 04:41:01 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > > @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ static irqreturn_t uio_pdrv_genirq_handler(int irq,
> struct uio_info *dev_info)
> > >* remember the state so we can allow user space to enable
On Thursday 06 December 2012 04:41:01 Hans J. Koch wrote:
> > @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ static irqreturn_t uio_pdrv_genirq_handler(int irq,
struct uio_info *dev_info)
> > * remember the state so we can allow user space to enable it later.
> > */
> >
> > - if (!test_and_set_bit(0, &priv->flag
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:22:57AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote:
> 1. uioinfo was kfreed based on the presence of pdev->dev.of_node, which was
> obviously wrong and unrelated to the fact if uioinfo was allocated statically
> or dynamically. This patch introduces new flag which clearly shows if ui
1. uioinfo was kfreed based on the presence of pdev->dev.of_node, which was
obviously wrong and unrelated to the fact if uioinfo was allocated statically
or dynamically. This patch introduces new flag which clearly shows if uioinfo
was allocated dynamically and kfrees uioinfo based on that flag;
2.
17 matches
Mail list logo
