On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:03:21PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > >>IMO this change would be worth considering for 2.5 even at this > >>late date, even though it'd break some TBD number of drivers. > > > > > >What would break? At the worse, drivers would just spit back a bunch of > >"warnings" about urbs that were not in flight attempting to be > >disconnected, right? > > What would break is TBD, as is how it'd break. I've seen > oopses come from changes that are more innocuous.
Hm, in beating on this for a while, the only thing I saw "odd" was reports of calls failing to usb_unlink_urb() by drivers in their disconnect() functions. Which is what we would expect to have happen here :) > >>Because the upside of that change would be that on 2.5, USB > >>device driver disconnect() bugs would be less _able_ to break > >>things in usbcore or elsewhere in the system. And there are > >>a lot of driver disconnect() bugs that likely won't get fixed > >>without some fundamental change like that. > > > > > >I agree, I'd like to at least test this kind of change out, and > >hopefully add it. It is the "right" thing to do :) > > OK, then for anyone who wants to test out such a change, try > this (untested) patch to see what breaks. It doesn't update > the API docs, or the other cases where driver disconnect() > methods are called, or any of the disconnect() methods, but > it should be a start. I like it, want to flush out the rest of the places this needs to be changed? thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
