[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:0.094 / U:24.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site