On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, David Brownell wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > > Sorry, terminology mixup. By "top-down order" I didn't mean that drivers > > always start by locking the root device, then one of its children, and so > > on. I meant that whenever two devices must be locked, the parent is > > locked first and the child is locked second. > > So to lock the parent device, one must lock _its_ parent. > Eventually one gets to root, like locktree() does! :)
[Even with smileys added there sometimes is difficulty understanding the intention of an email message. Was that supposed to be a joke? Assuming it wasn't...] No, to lock the parent device one simply locks it. There's no need to lock _its_ parent as well (unless you want to, of course). My point was not that when locking a device one _must_ lock its parent; the point was that when locking a device _and_ its parent, the parent's lock must be acquired first. 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
