From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755990Ab2LMSAl (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:00:41 -0500 Received: from mx3.cyfra.ua ([62.80.160.182]:34617 "EHLO mx3.cyfra.ua" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753481Ab2LMSAk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:00:40 -0500 From: Vitalii Demianets Organization: Factor-SPE To: "Hans J. Koch" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/uio/uio_pdrv_genirq.c: Fix memory freeing issues Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:00:36 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Cong Ding , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" References: <201211271929.32315.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <201212131923.21266.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <20121213173400.GH4261@local> In-Reply-To: <20121213173400.GH4261@local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201212132000.36261.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:34:00 Hans J. Koch wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 07:23:21PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote: > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 19:11:09 Hans J. Koch wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote: > > > > Please, review the v3 of "Fix memory freeing issues" patch (first in > > > > the series I posted yesterday) and ignore the second, as we haven't > > > > agreed on it. > > > > > > I can't find a v3. Please resend it. > > > > I've posted v3 as a [PATCH 1/2 v3] in series: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1450101.html > > > > You were CC-ed. If for some reason you didn't get it in your mailbox, > > I'll resend. > > OK, found it, sorry. I ignored that one because it does the same > flag-testing stuff. It is unnecessary and only tries to fix userspace > stupidity in the kernel. I won't buy that one, and I already gave an > explanation why. I won't take it just because you disagree with my opinion. > Hans, it keeps flag-testing code in place and does not change it. It keeps previous behaviour. I divided the patch in two parts and posted it in series specifically for that purpose, first patch in series does only memory-related stuff. It happens so that it needs another flag (UIO_INFO_ALLOCED) to do that memory-related stuff well. That's the only reason I gave the name to the already existing previously unnamed flag (bit 0, now UIO_IRQ_DISABLED). Again, the "Fix memory freeing issues" patch fixes only what it says on the tin: memory freeing issues. All flag-manipulation changes belong to the patch 2/2 in the series, which you could soundly reject, because we disagree on that matter. Keeping this flag-testing stuff as it was doesn't do any harm. Are you saying that you reject memory-related patch only because it doesn't change something else, totally unrelated?