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

From: Greg KH
Date: Wed Feb 13 2013 - 13:47:27 EST

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 01:35:29PM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
> > 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...

I stopped at that point in the series, that's the only reason why, I
didn't "check" to see if there was a dependancy, I just assumed there

So please resend, thanks.

greg k-h
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