Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:35:14 -0500 (EST) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: [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 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/
| |