Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 10 8月, 2009 1 次提交
  3. 13 7月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 06 7月, 2009 2 次提交
  7. 30 6月, 2009 1 次提交
  9. 13 6月, 2009 4 次提交
  11. 30 5月, 2009 1 次提交
  13. 22 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  15. 17 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  17. 16 4月, 2009 3 次提交
  19. 31 3月, 2009 1 次提交
    • A
      proc 2/2: remove struct proc_dir_entry::owner · 99b76233
      由 Alexey Dobriyan 提交于 
      Setting ->owner as done currently (pde->owner = THIS_MODULE) is racy
as correctly noted at bug #12454. Someone can lookup entry with NULL
->owner, thus not pinning enything, and release it later resulting
in module refcount underflow.

We can keep ->owner and supply it at registration time like ->proc_fops
and ->data.

But this leaves ->owner as easy-manipulative field (just one C assignment)
and somebody will forget to unpin previous/pin current module when
switching ->owner. ->proc_fops is declared as "const" which should give
some thoughts.

->read_proc/->write_proc were just fixed to not require ->owner for
protection.

rmmod'ed directories will be empty and return "." and ".." -- no harm.
And directories with tricky enough readdir and lookup shouldn't be modular.
We definitely don't want such modular code.

Removing ->owner will also make PDE smaller.

So, let's nuke it.

Kudos to Jeff Layton for reminding about this, let's say, oversight.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12454Signed-off-by: NAlexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
      99b76233
  21. 27 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  23. 22 3月, 2009 13 次提交
  25. 09 3月, 2009 1 次提交
    • E
      [ARM] pxa: separate definitions from pxa-regs.h and remove it finally · 5bf3df3f
      由 Eric Miao 提交于 
      The remaining registers are separated into:

   - <mach/regs-ost.h>
   - <mach/regs-rtc.h>
   - <mach/regs-intc.h>

and then we can remove pxa-regs.h completely. Instead of #include this
file, let's:

1. include the specific <mach/regs-*.h> with care (if that's absolutely
   necessary)

2. define the registers in the driver, make cleanly defined API to expose
   the register access to external with sufficient reason
Signed-off-by: NEric Miao <eric.miao@marvell.com>
      5bf3df3f
  27. 27 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  29. 13 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  31. 10 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  33. 15 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  35. 11 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  37. 07 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  39. 26 12月, 2008 1 次提交
    • H
      drivers/net/irda: fix sparse warnings: make symbols static · 0e49e645
      由 Hannes Eder 提交于 
      Fix this sparse warnings:

  drivers/net/irda/ma600-sir.c:239:5: warning: symbol 'ma600_reset' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/smsc-ircc2.c:875:5: warning: symbol 'smsc_ircc_hard_xmit_sir' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/smsc-ircc2.c:1131:6: warning: symbol 'smsc_ircc_set_sir_speed' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/smsc-ircc2.c:1897:6: warning: symbol 'smsc_ircc_sir_start' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:150:5: warning: symbol 'w83977af_open' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:313:5: warning: symbol 'w83977af_probe' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:412:6: warning: symbol 'w83977af_change_speed' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:492:5: warning: symbol 'w83977af_hard_xmit' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:734:5: warning: symbol 'w83977af_dma_receive' was not declared. Should it be static?
  drivers/net/irda/w83977af_ir.c:806:5: warning: symbol 'w83977af_dma_receive_complete' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: NHannes Eder <hannes@hanneseder.net>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      0e49e645
  41. 06 12月, 2008 1 次提交
  43. 02 12月, 2008 1 次提交