On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:37:19PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Ok, one of my original questions was if any V4L applications used the > > current /proc interface. If they do, as you say, then moving them to > > driverfs would not be a simple thing to do at this time. > > The driverfs API is not without problems. In fact, it's close to > opening Pandora's box. > > It turns a simple model of open() - IO - close() into something > much more complex. The recent patch to use it shows that the locking > issues connected to using an API that makes implementing open() > optional were not understood at all.
Ah, such kind words. It just warms my heart. :) It's nice to see that you are taking a look at the driverfs code for problems. No one has said the locking issues are completely fixed. greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0002en _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
