Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] pps: Use a single cdev

From: George Spelvin
Date: Wed Feb 13 2013 - 13:35:36 EST

> 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...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at