On Mon, Dec 09, 2002, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Montag, 9. Dezember 2002 22:16 schrieb Greg KH: > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 09:18:40PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > could anybody tell me how usb_device_read protects itself > > > against devices going away? It takes usb_bus_list_lock, but > > > that seems to help only against busses going away. > > > > It doesn't do a good job of this :) > > I would _really_ like to convert this to the seq_file interface someday, > > but when I initially looked at it, it didn't look like a simple > > change... > > > > Any fixes for this would be gladly accepted. > > Well, this isn't easy to do well without deep surgery. > Here's a patch that fixes the problem but isn't pretty. > It's just for review and please note, my kernel still > doesn't compile. > Perhaps we should allocate the buffers before we go down > the tree ? IMHO using BKL is more or less inevitable > in this case in any fix. > People from IBM will soon come down on me for > abuse of BKL ;-)
Heh. Why can't we just use reference counting? JE ------------------------------------------------------- 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
