On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:19:21 +0100 "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 15. Dezember 2002 10:43 schrieb Kari Hameenaho: > > On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:50:35 +0100 > > > > "Oliver Neukum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Ok, then there is no reson to put minor there. I thought that > > there were fixed number of interfaces and they just are > > assigned to devices. > > Could you please explain your reasoning? > Well, if the live time of the interface is same as other device specific data and the live time is a problem as in our mail and the function to get minor data from the interface is not good, then what reason is left to put it there ? --- 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
