On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote: > 2. Users want another private pointer in struct urb.
> As for a second pointer, although I agreed at first, I've now changed > my mind. It seems to me that the common pattern of use of the context > pointer of struct urb is stupid. In almost all cases we point it at a device > descriptor. This is quite odd, as the URB as addressed at a specific device. > We have a claim/unclaim model for interfaces, so an interface for which > there are active URBs should always have one and exactly one descriptor > associated with it. We should use that information and let urb->context > point at the associated scsi request or skb. > Comments? I don't understand the point of your comment. Are you saying that with more effective use of urb->context a second pointer wouldn't be needed? And are you saying that the associated scsi request or skb would contain a pointer back to the interface, making it unnecessary for urb->context to point to the private device structure? What about URBs that aren't associated with a scsi request or skb? -- there are a lot of them. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
