On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:17:40PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:35:04 +1000 > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Alan, > > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:29:11 +0100 Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. Should I just drop Oliver's existing patch from my tree for now then? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
