On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 03:28:45AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: Yours is the reply I was looking forward to. :)
> > > It works for me. > > Looking good. Glad I was able to do it right this time. > > [snip] > > Nope, that's wrong. What do you do propose to let the read on proc > do if you run proc_destroy ? Good question. I had an answer, but then I realized that it was wrong. Then I had another answer that was again wrong. The more I think about it, I just can't come up with a good way to lock proc. Ughhh. You see now why I wanted this patch to go in and worry about proc later. I would still like that to happen if there are no objections. > > Also, I'm getting an error that the proc interface is unsafe and the > > module cannot be removed? > > It is. Avoid proc if you can. I wish, but I think we've avoided it as much as we can for the time being. I was more curious whether or not it was something that was being done in the code that could be fixed to remove this warning. Thanks, John ------------------------------------------------------- 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
