Tim Waugh (tim@cyberelk.demon.co.uk)
Sun, 27 Sep 1998 10:44:17 +0100 (BST)
On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The LURK flag is still in and it will printk() a warning if used (it' s
> still as Tim implemented it).
KERN_WARNING "%s: lurking is deprecated so fix %s\n"
^^^^^^^^^^ that looks new.. ;-)
Please Andrea, if you insist on keeping the warning there, at least change
the printk level to KERN_DEBUG. Drivers that want to use the LURK flag
don't do any harm to other drivers, or even to themselves.
> I still personally think that this is the
> best choice. A printk will not harm at all pardevice developers and it
> will not hurt performance or resources at all, but it will help to
> _semantically_ put pardevice in sync with parport (and btw all pardevice
> in the standard kernel are just uptodate).
I agree that it's much nicer that all standard kernel drivers don't use
LURK.
> drivers/char/hfmodem/main.c | 12 ---
Does the hfmodem really need exclusive access to the port? Also, was I
right in assuming that the Baycom hamradio drivers were what started all
the exclusion stuff?
> drivers/net/plip.c | 5 +
Your change here changes "LURK" to "TRAN". I thought we were phasing out
the distinction? I'd set it to 0 for "no special flags".
Also, I think ENODEV would be better than EBUSY if register_device fails.
> drivers/scsi/imm.c | 21 +++++-
> drivers/scsi/ppa.c | 15 ++++
What about when jiffies roll over to zero? (Very minor issue, but..)
> Comments?
See above. ;-)
Tim.
*/
-- 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 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:18:25 EST