That's pretty much exactly what is being suggested. Leave the problem of very strange devices to specific drivers. The us->extra is there to help them out, but having arrays of pointers pushes more complexity into the core of usb-storage when it should be in the device-specific drivers.
Matt On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:43:40AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: Matthew Dharm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > But us->extra can only hold a single value. > > This isn't really true. If you implement them as different LUNs on the > same unit, the SCSI layer won't allow them to both have a command active > at once. > > Besides, the control thread for the unit will serialize the commands. > > OK. > > Still, such solutions (have a struct with two pointers and two > destructor routines in us->extra; have the driver copy this to > some local variables and replace us->extra when it calls the > subdriver to do the work, and restore things again when the > subdriver is done) feel extremely fragile and kludgy. > > You are not really suggesting the above? > > > Andries -- Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver C: Why are you upgrading to NT? AJ: It must be the sick, sadistic streak that runs through me. -- Chief and A.J. User Friendly, 5/12/1998
msg06225/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature