ainer for the code
in drivers/usb/atm/. Besides, I don't have a proper hardware to
test this.
So, who should I send this patch for review/testing?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff --git a/drivers/usb/atm/usbatm.c b/drivers/usb/atm/usbatm.c
index e717f5b..a994
Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> The problem is that I couldn't find the maintainer for the code
>> in drivers/usb/atm/.
>
> that would be me (though since I haven't used this modem in years I would
> be more than happy to hand it off to someone else).
>
>> Besides, I don't have a proper hardware
Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
@@ -1014,11 +1015,7 @@ static int usbatm_do_heavy_init(void *arg)
struct usbatm_data *instance = arg;
int ret;
- daemonize(instance->driver->driver_name);
allow_signal(SIGTERM);
- instance->thread_pid = current->pid;
Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
>>> Does the kthread API guarantee that the kthread is not running until you
>>> call
>> It does. That's why the race, you mentioned above is impossible.
>
> That is wrong. The API guar
Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
>> Oh, I see. You're right - this race is possible... I'll fix that up
>> if this patch works.
>
> it seems to work fine. Thanks again for doing this!
Oh, thanks for testing. What should I do next to get this into
mainline? Send it to Andrew with you in Cc, or
This is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone.
First, we kill one more user of kernel_thread, which is scheduled
for removal. Second - we kill one of the last users of kill_proc -
the function which is also to be removed, because it uses a pid_t
which is not safe now.
Signed-off-by: Pavel
