From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ttydev tree with the usb.current tree Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:17:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20090728141740.44d53b68@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <20090728140110.7cfe7c22.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090728112608.09a494e0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <200907281410.41449.oliver@neukum.org> <20090728132911.03ff78ea@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090728223504.6a6ae8e7.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:49329 "EHLO www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750848AbZG1NQk (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:16:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090728223504.6a6ae8e7.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Oliver Neukum , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:35:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Alan, > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:29:11 +0100 Alan Cox wrote: > > > > I need to look at the actual diff, but the combination looks completely > > bogus unless I'm misreading the fixup which is possible. > > Below is the actual patch from the usb.current tree. Thanks - ok that is probably safe. The change I was worried about (the error paths not adjusting port->count are ok as it gets zeroed within the mutex) Not sure its safe versus hangup but neither was the old code 8) Oliver: I'll send you an alternative patch later today/tomorrow that uses the ASYNC flags. Alan