On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:44:30 +0100 "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. Either you have a private array, which will lead people to do > proper locking, or you have a function and reference counting. > But a function which returns a pointer to a memory area that > could go away is a recipe for desaster. I thought that the usb_interface never goes away ? > If you do that, the list accessing functions can have internal locking. > And you've caused a temptation. You have now a way to get at a driver's > interfaces without the driver's knowledge. > You can do it now too, nothing is changed here ? --- Kari H�meenaho ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
