On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:06:47 -0700 Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it's incomplete, here's what happens: Yes, I figured that part out. It looks clean and correct. However... > [] but any future writes will > fail (due to the driver failing on a call to usb_submit_urb() for the > device that is disconnected.) This puts some faith into usb_submit_urb properly failing when directed at disconnected devices. I seem to recall we had a discussion just recently that this ought not to be done "after the disconnect returns". But it may be just my imagination. Why do you keep old NULL checks around (e.g. if (!serial) return;) ? -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
