Am Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 21:00 schrieb David Brownell:
> Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > You're right. Normal drivers should never have to worry about the config
> > changing out from under them. But they might want to block disconnect()
> > or notify_reset() at certain times. Oliver seems to think that's better
> > done using a private semaphore rather than serialize. What do you think?
>
> As a rule, using fewer locks is better.
Exactly, and we currently use more locks than I like. 2.4 was clearer.
But two locks with clear ownership is better than one lock with shared
ownership.
> I'm not sure I agree that drivers should be able to block those calls.
> But if there's a real need, it'd clearly be rare; and I suspect that
> using dev->serialize would suffice.
As we have sleepable callbacks in these codepaths we cannot prevent
blocking there. It is important that we stay consistent. We currently do
synchronisation between the core and drivers by callbacks and should
therefore limit ourselves to this one method.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
