From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: spi_set_drvdata() handling in spidev_probe() Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:03:42 -0800 Message-ID: <200912101903.42892.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <8bd0f97a0910122332y321138ak8294e5f152064344@mail.gmail.com> <200912101825.21244.david-b@pacbell.net> <8bd0f97a0912101832g1398f6dbld984d55bbf37f4ee@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: spi-devel-general-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Mike Frysinger Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0912101832g1398f6dbld984d55bbf37f4ee-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: spi-devel-general-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 10 December 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > Yes, that particular assignment should be mutex-protected. > > > > The original patch shouldn't really have removed it; the > > change to the device_create() signature was addressing a > > slightly different race. > = > should i send a patch, or you going to fix it up ? =A0i would simply > restore the mutex code like it was before ... send a patch. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev