Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/driver.c : driver_unregister

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 08:21:10AM +0100, Arne Caspari wrote:
> Arne Caspari wrote:
> >Russell King wrote:
> >>No.  The semaphore is there to ensure that the function does not
> >>return until the driver structure has a use count of zero.  If you
> >>tested your patch, you'd find that your change would deadlock on
> >>the locked semaphore.
> >
> >I am sorry I can not test that patch since unloading of the modules I am 
> >currently testing blocks anyway. This makes it very hard to test the 
> >patch :-( and currently this was the reason why I was going to this.
> 
> I reverted the code to the original 2.6.9 and unloading of IEEE1394 
> modules like 'eth1394' does just that: It deadlocks on this semaphore.
> 
> At least this is a good excuse why I was not able to test my patch ;-) 
> The behaviour just remained the same as before...
> 
> Btw. I am developing/debugging on a machine without serial/parallel 
> ports. Is there a way to connect a kernel mode debugger to this. I am 
> used to windows development and there the debugger works on a IEEE1394 
> connection. Does anybody have hints to improve development on such a 
> machine?

Netconsole, and/or kgdb-over-ethernet? You'll need a -mm or -tiny
kernel for the latter, or just pull the patches individually.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.