From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757894Ab3BMSrK (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:47:10 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:58363 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752892Ab3BMSrH (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:47:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:47:00 -0800 From: Greg KH To: George Spelvin Cc: giometti@linux.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, peter@hurleysoftware.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] pps: Use a single cdev Message-ID: <20130213184700.GA15633@kroah.com> References: <20130213182026.GA3996@kroah.com> <20130213183529.27043.qmail@science.horizon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130213183529.27043.qmail@science.horizon.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:35:29PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote: > > You forgot a Signed-off-by: line for this patch, so I can't apply it, or > > the 9/9 patch :( > > Oops, fixed. I don't see why the 9/9 patch depends on it, > though. They're not related or interdependent in any way. > > If you want to check the logic, I'd appreciate it. I'm not > really sure about the RCU stuff. My understanding is that: > - the idr code does the appropriate write locking when > modifying itself, so I don't need to do any. > - The pps_device returned from idr_find is itself refcounted, > so it can't go away, and the accesses don't have bo be > inside the RCU read "lock". It's only the IDR's internal > index nodes that might get reallocated by modificaitons of > a different part of the tree. > > > Care to resend just these two after fixing this up? > > I can, but if you think you need 9/9 resent (which *did* have a S-o-b), > I'm confused and wonder why... I stopped at that point in the series, that's the only reason why, I didn't "check" to see if there was a dependancy, I just assumed there was... So please resend, thanks. greg k-h