 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] linux TPM changes question
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] linux TPM changes question |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:37:45 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:48:52 +0000 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
While there has been a new (conditionalized) call to del_singleshot_timer_sync() added, the old instance hasn't been deleted (other than the parallel atomic_set(&chip->data_pending, 0)). Is this intentional? If so, how is this supposed to work? Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH][XM-TEST] Test for bug #533, Dan Smith |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [Xen-devel] Daily Xen-HVM Builds, Rick Gonzalez |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] Question about monitor_table, Travis Johnson |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] linux TPM changes question, Stefan Berger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
