On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:13:17PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > 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.
It's your imagination :) I'll make sure that this will work properly with the usb core, as it makes writing a USB driver a _lot_ simpler if we keep this logic in the USB core. > Why do you keep old NULL checks around (e.g. if (!serial) return;) ? Old code for when I didn't know better :) They can all be deleted now from what I can see. If I get ambitious I'll do so... thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- 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
