Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 17:22 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:44:32PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 16:38 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> > > @@ -1115,6 +1161,8 @@ static void usb_serial_disconnect(struct
> > > usb_interface *interface)
> > > if (serial->type->disconnect)
> > > serial->type->disconnect(serial);
> > >
> > > + release_sibling(serial, interface);
> > > +
> > > /* let the last holder of this object cause it to be cleaned up */
> > > usb_serial_put(serial);
> > > dev_info(dev, "device disconnected\n");
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > does this assume you are called for the original interface first?
>
> No, I handle either interface being unbound first (e.g. see
> release_sibling()).
>
> > I am afraid that is an assumption you cannot make. In fact, if somebody
> > is doing odd things with sysfs you cannot even assume both will see a
> > disconnect()
>
> Right, but disconnect() will still be called also for the sibling
> interface as part of release_sibling() above.
OK, sorry I overlooked that.
Regards
Oliver
