Am Dienstag, 2. Juli 2002 17:14 schrieb David Brownell:
> > I've read them. They are, let's say, as yet inconclusive.
> > Anyway, the problem is not limited to 2.5; 2.4 is affected as well.
>
> So the question is how to deal with the current BKL usage,
> which is purely to address rmmod issues. I don't think
> that preventing rmmod is desirable.
Nor do I. But for now and 2.4 we have to live with what's there.
> > For now all uses of probe/disconnect in usb(dev)fs are full of races,
> > some even exist on UP.
> > I want to reduce there number as far as possible and provide
> > a safe helper for the rest. Unfortunately the BKL issue
> > cannot be hidden. I'll include the current version. It even compiles.
>
> I'd rather not see such helpers _change_ the "BKL held" assertion;
> better to keep that as an invariant during these routines.
For 2.4 of course sure. But why for 2.5 ? After all reducing BKL
is one of the overall goals.
> And I'd also rather see these formalized as interface level calls,
> internal to usbcore, rather than continue to try to fake them out
> as being device level. For example, pass device and interface
> index (!= interface number!!) to both calls, letting driver and
> priv be implicit (they're stored in the interface).
Understood. I am working on it.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
