Am Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2003 02:25 schrieb Greg KH:
> 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.
No, we _have_ to keep track of them at some place. Either in the drivers
or in usbcore or in the HCDs.
If we don't do a timeout we have to keep track of them so we can kill
them upon disconnect or we have a memory leak.
And I agree with David's notion that timeouts don't belong into HCDs.
It's a common functionality that can be provided higher up.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
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
