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

Attachment: msg06225/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to