On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:32:22AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > 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? Ok, in order to get a good merge for today, I've dropped it now. Oliver, care to work with Alan to get something that is agreeable to everyone? 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
