> > > Because I said reference counting and you went out and found one special > > > case which you think immediately proves your point. > > > > No, I was talking about device management. You're the one who > > keeps ignoring such issues, and wants to talk refcounting instead. > > > > If you're interested, your most annoying (to me) "debate" tactic in this > > whole damn thread is consistently ignoring or mis-representing what > > I've said in this specific area. > > To be honest, that sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Remember that this particular subthread started with me making a point about how the device management issues are rather distinct from the memory management issues. That's much the same class of point the coding style document makes about locking and reference counting -- that they're two distinct issues. Likewise, refcounting and device management are two distinct issues. (Sort of like getting rid of locks held by the hardware itself.) That's why I think a snide pot/kettle/black type of comment is especially inappropriate for in this case. All along, you were not being responsive to this particular issue. Today is about the first time I've seen you actually seem to respond to it ... although "do it like uhci instead" isn't exactly aiming for common ground. > Seriously tho, you keep ignoring what I've been saying, and I don't know > why. Could you give a point of yours that I've _ignored_ rather than just not agreeing with? (I know I've pointed out this one issue more than once, including your non-responses.) One that's significant to the main issues, as opposed to one where a response would just make more clutter in mailboxes. And ideally one where it'd be clear I was "ignoring" the issue. > So I'm going and fixing the ohci and ehci drivers. I'll send a patch > when I get the chance to test it (not just compile it). Don't bother until you can actually indicate some real problem in the 2.5.15 code. So far all you've persuaded me of is that you'll go to substantial lengths to disagree with me. (If you didn't want to come off like that, see above.) Perhaps I should just fix the uhci code too, eh? I'm sure that'd be equallly well received. > > The code to which that comment applies is way at the end of > > that routine, after all the hardware (device management) hooks > > (such as net->stop) I was talking about were called. > > I don't see where net->stop is, do you mean dev->uninit or something? See the very first function called by unregister_netdevice(). - Dave _______________________________________________________________ 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
