[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [OOPS, usbcore, releaseintf] 2.6.0-test10-mm1
    On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Duncan Sands wrote:

    > Hi Alan, this is for usbfs, not a normal driver. Recall that I want to replace
    > use of ps->devsem with ps->dev->serialize.

    Maybe you shouldn't do that. Other drivers maintain their own data
    structure separately from the struct usb_device and with its own lock.
    But usbfs may suffer from complications as a result of its unorthodox
    approach to device ownership.

    > Currently ps->dev is set to NULL in
    > the devio.c usbfs disconnect method (if some interface is claimed) or in
    > inode.c on device disconnect, making it hard to lock with ps->dev->serialize :)
    > Thus disconnect should no longer be signalled by setting ps->dev to NULL.

    If you would keep the ps->devsem lock, would there be any problem in
    setting ps->dev to NULL to indicate disconnection?

    Are they any reasons for not keeping ps->devsem? Since usbfs generally
    acts as a driver and drivers generally don't have to concern themselves
    with usbdev->serialize (the core handles it for them), shouldn't usbfs
    also be able to ignore ps->dev->serialize?

    Alan Stern

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.018 / U:289.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site