Am Sonntag, 5. Oktober 2003 06:19 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 07:17:49PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 4. Oktober 2003 18:09 schrieb David Brownell:
> > > Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > this ioctl calls usb_unbind_interface() directly. It seems to me that this
> > > > will make the driver model's view inconsistent.
> > >
> > > How?
> >
> > I was under the impression that driverfs keeps records of associations
> > of drivers and devices. Doesn't it?
>
> Hm, good point, it does. Bleah, we need a way to disconnect stuff from
> the driver core without actually deleting the device :(
>
> > > > IMHO this ioctl, is a layering violation and should be replaced in
> > > > driverfs.
> > >
> > > It's not a layering violation to let user-mode software override
> > > policies defaulted by the kernel ... like the policy overridden by
> > > this ioctl, giving kernel drivers priority over user-mode drivers.
> >
> > You are right. But the issue is in no way specific to USB.
> > I have no problem with the syscall as such, but I think it
> > should be in driverfs, not usbfs.
>
> Agreed. Any proposals on how to do it?
The obvious way would be to add these ioctls to driverfs (USBDEVFS_CONNECT
suffers from the same problem). I suspect you wouldn't be happy. Neither
would Patrick Mochel be, neither would I.
The ioctls are a very crude interface. But a more powerful interface needs
to be designed by somebody with experience in driverfs, best Patrick himself.
I can make a patch removing the ioctls from usbfs. These are needed as
actually using them will kill the kernel in the long run. Shall I?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
