Am Mittwoch, 19. März 2003 23:46 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 07:56:27AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >am I right in assuming that any disconnects/probes _must_ be done
> > > through driver core? Or is calling usb_device_remove() directly still
> > > legal?
> >
> > I'm not even sure why usb_device_{probe,remove}() are even exported.
>
> Someone needs to fix up the usb-storage driver for these functions to be
> made private.
I just thought about this. It's much less trivial than I thought.
The patch I made for cleaning up reset is crap.
We cannot ignore it either. Today I saw a mouse with memory stick
reader. If this is HID+storage, multiinterface devices are no longer
theory.
The problem is somewhat involved and I might even be wrong.
Upon device reset the interfaces whose drivers do not make a reset
must be notified that they cannot use the device while we reset it.
Currently this is done via disconnect()ing all interfaces.
This is potentially lethal. This is done as part of the block io error
handling path. This means that all memory allocations must be made
GFP_NOIO or GFP_ATOMIC. Now please correct me if I am wrong,
but the hotplugging subsystem does exactly that, doesn't it?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Does your code think in ink?
You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing.
What are you waiting for?
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
