Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2002 01:25 schrieb David Brownell:
> >>>IMHO usb_stor_clear_halt and usb_stor_reset_common should take
> >>>dev_semaphore.
> >>
> >>What's the race?
> >
> > usb_stor_clear_halt uses a synchronous control message.
> > It will not be unlinked upon disconnect. Disconnect must not
> > return until the control message has failed.
>
> In that case shouldn't your argument be that all the synchronous
> wrappers for control and bulk should also take that semaphore?
> Better to have one fix address most instances of this problem.
I'll work through all of them, don't worry ;-)
> But here's a case where I think it'd be wrong to use a semaphore.
> Some sort of shared lock for routine use, with "unbind driver from
> interface" processing always getting it in exclusive mode, is more
> the right idea ...
Upon first consideration I'd have thought so, but on second thought
I found no use for a driver sending concurrent synchronous messages
to an interface.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net emial 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
