On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:27:56AM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > Since I don't have any (current) use for the driver_data pointer, I have gone ahead > and cleaned up the first 74 patches without adding the driver_data. > With the mushing of the patches you had proposed this is about > a 60 patch series and addresses all the other comments you had in the first 74 patches. > I hope I have gotten the "right" granularity now. If it is ok with you, I could send these > out for your consideration. Please do. But if you do, do you mind if I add the driver_data pointer, so you can blame me later if no one uses it? :) > The only unresolved issue in the remaining patches (75 - 117) is the reference counting > issue we have been debating. As I noted in my earlier emails on this topic, the reference > counting has been there for a long time and I am reluctant get rid of that code without > additional testing/analysis. So I want to propose the following options: > > 1) Keep the existing code and I will skip the patches that cleaned up the reference counting > > 2) Take the cleanup that I have implemented > > In either case, I would further test and analyze this code to see if (a) the race condition that is being > addressed is valid and (b) if there is a different mechanism that could be used to deal with it. Given > the gaping holes in the current implementation, my personal preference would be to go with the > second option. Let me know what you want me to do here. Ok, that sounds acceptable, but don't add the lock to the hv_driver, or is that needed right now? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
