On Sat, Feb 22, 2003, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The intent was for 2.4 to have this same contract. Having a reference count
> > on the device structure is pointless if that weren't the case.
> >
> > However, there may be bugs there in HCDs, the core, or drivers with
> > respect to this because it was never clearly defined or enforced.
>
> I just want to point out that from a pragmatic perspective, those
> changes ("bug" fixes if you insist) won't break drivers that have
> already been adhering to the stricter contract I described.
Yes and no.
The OHCI fix I sent was necessary even with your stricter contract.
> I remember trying to figure out how I could write code that'd shut
> down cleanly on *all* HCDs back in 2.4.early, and the result was just
> what I described: after disconnect(), if driver never touches the
> device again, it wouldn't oops with usb-uhci, uhci, or usb-ohci.
> But if they touched it later, there were problems.
As long as they have a reference, it's not a problem with uhci. usb-uhci
looks good to me too.
usb-ohci looks good after the patch I've made.
The core needs another fix (the device id fix I've referred to in other
emails).
After that, if the drivers are stricter, it's not a problem. Otherwise,
it's not in the drivers control and thusly not something they can do
anything about.
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
