On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote: > Which is why I keep coming back to thinking uhci_endpoint_disable() > should exist: the core DOES do that work in most non-UHCI cases! > > That'd fix most of the real "observed in the wild" bugs of this type. > Certainly not all of the potential cases where synchronous unlink is > abused ... just the bulk of the ones that appear in practice. > > The way to make that into an API change is to require that all HCDs > implement endpoint_disable, and guarantee the consequence to USB drivers: > that all (non-control) urbs have completed when the disconnect() routine > is called. (That lifecycle is more attuned to a "fire and forget" > approach to URB management, fwiw.) > > > > Until that change is made, however, we just have to keep in mind that > > synchronous unlinks are liable to be sources of trouble. > > Primarily because most of the uses of it don't care about _unlink_ as > much as something else. Removing those abuses in disconnect() paths > will make it easy to identify and fix the other cases.
I'm going to leave this up to Greg. If he feels endpoint_disable should be added, I'll add it. Call it moral laziness :-) Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
