Am Samstag, 14. Dezember 2002 22:23 schrieb Kari Hameenaho:
> 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 ?
They perish with their device.
If that weren't the case we'd have a memory leak.
> > 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 ?
Not with knowledge of only the minor number.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
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
