On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:26:35 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" <vitalivanov@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Didn't here anything on this? What is our final decision here?

It's gotten worse, not better. Apparently, you aren't getting the
concept of protecting the open count with a static lock and my
explanations are just not vivid enough or something. So I decided
to fix it myself. Maybe then the patch in C will explain it better
than English. But I didn't have time to do it.

Also, there's an outright bug in the latest version. Your purge
of the wrong lock was incomplete and so there was an unbalanced up().
But this is moot.

So, the version before the latest is borderline acceptable. If Willy
wants to take it, it's fine. I'll fix it up later together with 2.6.

-- Pete

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel