On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Franck wrote: > 2005/10/12, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Franck wrote: > > > Does a patch that do this have any chance to be accepted ? > > > > I think we should decide on the _correct_ solution first. Then acceptance > > will be obvious. > > > > ok, but my question was more: "does the usbcore need to be fixed or is > it my design that is completly broken ?". I guess I'm safe, if the > sl811 has potentialy the same issue...
Both drivers would be better off if you simply skip over URBs for which urb->hcpriv is NULL. Then if you set urb->hcpriv in your urb_enqueue routine and clear it when you give back the URB, you should be fairly safe. > > > but HCD is aware of the lock that protects the ep's list. > > > > No it isn't. That lock is declared static in core/hcd.c. It's called > > hcd_data_lock. > > > > correct, lock is neither part of usb_hcd struct nor part of > usb_host_endpoint. It's a static global. Do you know why ? I don't know. David wrote that part of the code; you can ask him. Making that spinlock part of the usb_hcd structure sounds like a good idea to me. Better than EXPORTing it. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
