> > --- local_tree.orig/drivers/usb/core/devio.c 2004-07-25 14:34:32.843129288
> > +0200
> > +++ local_tree/drivers/usb/core/devio.c 2004-07-25 14:37:18.758596644 +0200
> > @@ -1180,109 +1180,205 @@
> >
> > if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
> > return -EPERM;
> > - down(&dev->serialize);
> > - if (!connected(dev)) {
> > - up(&dev->serialize);
> > - return -ENODEV;
> > - }
> >
> > switch (cmd) {
> > case USBDEVFS_CONTROL:
> > + down(&dev->serialize);
> > + if (!connected(dev)) {
> > + up(&dev->serialize);
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > snoop(&dev->dev, "%s: CONTROL\n", __FUNCTION__);
> > ret = proc_control(ps, p);
> > if (ret >= 0)
> > inode->i_mtime = CURRENT_TIME;
> > + up(&dev->serialize);
> > break;
>
> This is completely nonsensual. Is there a better reason than just
> handwaving? Are you going to add a case which does NOT take the
> semaphore? If yes, what is it?
Hi Pete, this patch is only there so that the moving of the semaphore down
into a given routine (for example into proc_control), is independent of moving
it down into any other routine. Or are you asking: why push the semaphore
down at all?
Ciao,
Duncan.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
