Johannes Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 05, 2002, Peter Osterlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > #define usb_dec_dev_use usb_free_dev > > > > What's the purpose of that define? Just to confuse readers? ;-) > > I take blame for it. It was actually to make more sense to readers. > > The reason I did that was because having a usb_free_dev call in the HCD > code wouldn't make logical sense. The HCD isn't freeing the device, it's > just decrementing the reference count it incremented with > usb_inc_dev_use. > > Just so turns out, the implementation of usb_dec_dev_use and > usb_free_dev need to be identical because of the reference counting, so > I just setup a macro.
Wouldn't it make more sense to rename usb_free_dev to usb_dec_dev_use and get rid of the macro? usb_free_dev isn't unconditionally freeing the dev, so I think its name is confusing. -- Peter Osterlund - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://w1.894.telia.com/~u89404340 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
