On Mon, 3 May 2004, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:16:01PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > Stuart responed to the suggestion above with the attached patch. > > I changed comments a little. > > > > I think I'll have to accept it for Red Hat. Matt, Alan - what's the > > community's take? > > It looks pretty good to me. I could argue about the benefits/drawbacks of > taking/releasing the lock twice in the invoke_transport() function... but > this seems like a reasonable approach. > > Alan, what do you think?
I also think it looks good. Getting/releasing the lock twice doesn't bother me because that only happens when a command fails and we auto-sense. We need to do _something_ in 2.6 to accomplish more or less the same result. One possibility, not quite so invasive as this (but perhaps also not as effective?) is to have usbfs refuse to send URBs to a device unless either none of the interfaces are bound or at least one of them is bound to usbfs itself. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
