On Mon, May 13, 2002, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > See my previous response to Johannes about > > > > what Documentation/CodingStyle says. > > > > > > You quoted "if another thread can find your data structure, > > > and you don't have a reference count on it you almost > > > certainly have a bug". But see above -- the count does > > > not need to be driver-visible. > > > > But one of the threads that can touch that data structure, comes > > directly from the device driver itself. We _need_ that protection! > > We _have_ that protection because only device drivers that > claim an interface, perhaps via probe(), are allowed to use > that device. To repeat: the protection doesn't need to be > explicit in the driver programming interfaces. > > On the other hand, usbdevfs doesn't necessarily bother to > claim interfaces when it makes control calls. Since that's > internal to usbcore, I don't think that undermines my point. > It's already got its fingers in lots of places "real drivers" > aren't allowed to go.
Actually, it does undermine your point. To make it work we need reference counting. Callbacks won't work because then we some sort of complicated cancellation support to make sure the blocking usb_control_msg calls stop correctly. JE _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
