Jim Radford wrote:
...
This patch reverts d9a7ecacac5f8274d2afce09aadcf37bdb42b93a since it
breaks drivers that need to access the ->port[] array in shutdown
(most of them).
Patch applied, tested, works for me.
Signed-Off: Jim Radford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:41AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jim Radford wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:55:14PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> >
> >>So where does the memory get freed -- the structure pointed at
> >>by the serial->port[i] thingie ? It's not a leak, is it?
> >
> >It gets free'd th
Jim Radford wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:55:14PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
So where does the memory get freed -- the structure pointed at
by the serial->port[i] thingie ? It's not a leak, is it?
It gets free'd through device_unregister
for (i = 0; i < num_ports; ++i) {
...
Am Dienstag, 13. März 2007 14:39 schrieb Mark Lord:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >
> > If we get to destroy_serial(), how can ports still be open?
>
> (1) open up a ckermit session on /dev/usb_serial_port_0.
> (2) suspend the machine (to RAM).
> (3) the suspend logic "removes" all USB devices.
No,
a
Oliver Neukum wrote:
If we get to destroy_serial(), how can ports still be open?
(1) open up a ckermit session on /dev/usb_serial_port_0.
(2) suspend the machine (to RAM).
(3) the suspend logic "removes" all USB devices.
Cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
Am Dienstag, 13. März 2007 10:14 schrieb Jim Radford:
> > So where does the memory get freed -- the structure pointed at
> > by the serial->port[i] thingie ? It's not a leak, is it?
>
> It gets free'd through device_unregister
>
> for (i = 0; i < num_ports; ++i) {
> ...
> port
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:55:14PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jim Radford wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:18:19PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:59:22PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:42:35PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 a
Jim Radford wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:18:19PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:59:22PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:42:35PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:33:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:22:22PM -04
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 05:18:19PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:59:22PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:42:35PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:33:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:22:22PM -0400, M
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:59:22PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:42:35PM -0700, Jim Radford wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 01:33:31PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:22:22PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> > > > Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > >>Mark Lord
10 matches
Mail list logo