On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Otavio Salvador, > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Dear Alexandre Belloni, >> > >> >> On 02/07/2013 14:03, Marek Vasut wrote: >> >> > Dear Alexandre Belloni, >> >> > >> >> >> Dear Marek, >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't seem to be hitting that issue. I'm using 3.10rc7. Do you know >> >> >> how to reproduce it ? >> >> > >> >> > The check is just redundant, it's not a bug. >> >> >> >> Ok, that's what I understood first but then got confused by reports of >> >> it solving a bug. >> > >> > It cannot solve a thing. If it does, then we have a problem. >> > >> > What kind of bug do you see ? How can I replicate it ? Can you send me a >> > testcase? >> >> As I said this code sometimes work. If you put a printf before this >> call it sometimes work. So I think we have a race somewhere. >> >> When I were debugging this I found that when it works we have 10 >> active channels, it seems. > > Uh, the read_raw() should exit with -EBUSY, since the mutex_tryload() will fail > iff buffered operation is in progress. Or what do you mean by having "10 active > channels"? The read_raw returned invalid. The onehot always returns false and I have 10 as mask comparing return. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://projetos.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
