On Tuesday 24 September 2002 11:32 pm, David Brownell wrote: > Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 17. September 2002 19:44 schrieb David Brownell: > >>>If I unlink my urbs upon disconnect synchronously and resubmit my urbs > >>>in the completon handler, is there a race condition between the two? > >> > >>Don't EVER submit another urb after you've gotten a disconnect() > >>callback -- that'd be a bug in your driver. Your disconnect logic > >>needs to arrange (first thing!) that no more urbs get submitted. > >
> > There's quite subtle a problem here. > > In principle disconnect() is not SMP-safe at present by design. > > The "not SMP-safe" seems more related to module unloading than > to the semantics of disconnect(). Don't scare the newbie ... ;) > > And it's worth emphasizing that it doesn't affect the truth of > what I said: submitting after disconnect() is called is Wrong. > If this is the case, the first line of every disconnect for every driver should be: spin_lock_irqsave(desc->killlock, flags); Anton Wilson ------------------------------------------------------- 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
