On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:Sorry, I don't understand. Are you worried that process A might set suspending_task = A but then process B might still see suspending_task == NULL? Or that A might set suspend_task = NULL but then B might still see suspending_task == A? Neither one will cause any problem, since the only case that matters is when B sees suspending_task == B -- and that can happen if and only if B was the last process to set suspending_task. In fact, you might as well get rid of the set_suspending_task() routine entirely and just put the assignments inline. Where is this get_device() undone? Shouldn't there be an extra put_device() added to unregister_dropped_devices()? And now the change to device_destroy() isn't needed at all. Alan Stern --
| Ingo Molnar | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #10919] [regression] display dimming is slow and laggy - Acer Travelmate 661lci |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
