On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 05:08:14PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > >But what about drivers that fire off urbs and don't keep a pointer to > >them around? They don't know if all of their urbs are completed or not, > >nor should they really care. The visor driver is one good example of > >this. > > It would certainly simplify things if that (b) change I mentioned > were to take the (b3) solution ... "hcd.c" certainly knows all of > the URBs, and it could easily unlink them ... both when the hardware > physically goes away, and when the driver is just being unbound > (rmmod or whatever).
But we don't really _have_ to keep track of all of them, right? And it sounds like they will just fail after disconnect() happens, so there's no problems. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
