This is fundamentally the problem. Your vision of how stuff is supposed to work in the USB code is solely your vision and doesn't match what was intended when I wrote the code or what the majority of the code does.
You can keep thinking whatever you want, but it ain't reality.
ERm, "person 1's code doesn't match person 2's code", yes?
Just because you think you want to, or can, change how the API works, doesn't make it so.
2.4 USB doesn't work like you think it does.
Not the code you wrote, true. But then, the code Roman wrote doesn't work like _you_ think it does either; you recently admitted that when you made the 2.3 refcounting changes, you skipped that part. And so there's still an issue lingering in 2.5.62 ... and finger pointing isn't going to improve anything.
What's the big deal? There are issues we've both raised, and yelling over email doesn't help. You want to see the pure memory-management aspects done with refcounting. Great. I don't want to see the non-memory-management ones done that way. What's the problem?
------------------------------------------------------- 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
