On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Your patch is more robust and we should go with it
> (and thanks for fixing this bug!).

Ok, I committed the patch as-is, since it's what Anders tested, but I'm 
not at all convinced that it is necessarily the best or final form. The 
things I am aware of but didn't think about all *that* deeply:

 - do we get return values etc right (ie if we complete the command that 
   didn't give any data, how do we account the size of it?)

 - what about that remaining old unexpected case? I kept the "wait for it 
   with timeout" behaviour for the case that wasn't an issue here, but if 
   it really is a shared interrupt, that seems like it's going to always 
   reset the timeout to WAIT_WORSTCASE, which doesn't sound really right.

so I think this particular bug is fixed and we should be better off, but 
I'm definitely not claiming that the code shouldn't have people thinking 
about improving it..

			Linus
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/