On Thu, Feb 20, 2003, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Absolutely. > 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. Yeah, it's just duplicated code right now. JE ------------------------------------------------------- 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
