On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 05:38:05PM +0300, Kristina Martšenko wrote: > On 04/04/14 16:30, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 02:46:14PM +0300, Kristina Martšenko wrote: > > > >> Yes, I didn't find any interrupt handlers either, which is partially why > >> I thought it was (probably) safe. > > > > What's the other part of why it was safe? Put that stuff in the > > changelog. When we're reviewing patches we're always interested to know > > if it's safe. :) > > The other part was whether the code was allowed to sleep. I figured it > probably was since it's only accessed from MTD callback functions and > other drivers in drivers/mtd/devices/ also sleep in those functions > (either by using mutexes or by calling schedule() directly). > > I didn't mention why I thought it was safe in the changelog because I > thought maybe the reasons would seem too "obvious" to more experienced > kernel developers. Yeah. In the end, I looked up those functions and saw that they sleep as well. On the staging list, we're not going to be subsystem experts. Also I prefer just emailing people my questions instead of looking things up in the code since hopefully they know the answers already if they wrote the patch. > > Should I test and resend the patch with a new changelog? Whatever... The patch is fine. Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
