[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: klists and struct device semaphores

    On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Alan Stern wrote:

    > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Patrick Mochel wrote:
    > > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected,
    > > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it
    > > to the PM core?
    > Having thought it through, I believe all we need for USB support is this:
    > Whenever usb_register() in the USB core calls driver_register()
    > and the call filters down to driver_attach(), that routine
    > should lock dev->parent->sem before calling driver_probe_device()
    > (and unlock it afterward, of course).
    > (For the corresponding remove pathway, where usb_deregister()
    > calls driver_unregister(), it would be nice if __remove_driver()
    > locked dev->parent->sem before calling device_release_driver().
    > This is not really needed, however, since USB drivers aren't
    > supposed to touch the device in their disconnect() method.)

    Why can't you just lock it in ->probe() and ->remove() yourself?


    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: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.023 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site