> What I *really* object to with this patch is that it inherently assumes > that there is only one multiplexed resource in the entire system... but > of course nowhere enforces that. The patch does nothing of the sort. Not unless there is a bug I am not seeing anyway. It does assume nobody tries to grab pairs of such resources as it doesn't do deadlock avoidance. It's now a shared resource patch however, its a multiplexor patch and that is precisely why it is called MUX not SHARED or OVERLAY Alan _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
