On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:36:49 +0100, Tim Waugh <twaugh@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 11:31:50AM -0400, Dave Strauss wrote:
>
> > if (check_release_me_flag()) {
>
> You can clear it here, since you are already going to release the
> port. Otherwise:
>
> > parport_release();
> ... it could get set here...
> > lock_access();
> > clear_release_me_flag();
> ... and never noticed.
> > unlock_access();
> > clear_ownership_flag();
> > }
> > }
>
> Tim.
> */
>
Not necessarily. I probably don't care if it gets set after I
check for it, because I will sooner or later come back into an
entrypoint and check for it again. This *does* assume that the
calling process won't leave the lp device hanging in the breeze.
Hmm...
I'm assuming that "lock_access()" exists and that it holds off
the preempt function from getting at the "release_me" flag until
"unlock_access()" is called. What would these functions consist
of?
-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: linux-parport-request@torque.net --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 14:52:48 EDT