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 --
| Srivatsa Vaddagiri | Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue() |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | 2.6.26-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| 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(). |
| Ilpo Järvinen | Re: [bug] stuck localhost TCP connections, v2.6.26-rc3+ |
git: | |
