On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:09:50AM -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> Looks relatively sane at first glance; busy this week so haven't looked
> very hard yet. Two thing though... you're mixing proper C types
> (uint32_t) and the Linux-specific legacy crap types (__u32). Pick one. I
> won't recommend _which_ one, because if I do I'll make Andrew unhappy.
> But pick one; don't use both at the same time.

Ok. I choose __u32. :)

> Also read Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt and ponder
> deeply your use of 'volatile' on certain members of struct pps_s.

I read such document but I'm still convinced that the attribute
volatile is needed for {assert,clear}_sequence and {assert,clear}_tu
since inside pps_event() they are updated without any locks at all
thanks to the dummy_info variable which is used for unallocated PPS
sources.

Here you can find my last patch.

Thanks again,

Rodolfo

-- 

GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail:    giometti@enneenne.com
Linux Device Driver                             giometti@gnudd.com
Embedded Systems                     		giometti@linux.it
UNIX programming                     phone:     +39 349 2432127