lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: klists and struct device semaphores
    Date
    On Wednesday 30 March 2005 21:16, Patrick Mochel wrote:
    >
    > 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?
    >

    Will the lock be exported (via helper functions)? I always felt dirty using
    subsys.rwsem because it I think it was supposed to be implementation detail.

    --
    Dmitry
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.047 / U:118.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site