On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, David Brownell wrote: > > Or are you referring to the second sentence in the comment? It doesn't > > mention asynchronous unlinks in particular; it just says that interrupts > > have to be enabled. > > Yes. One of the basic reasons to be async is so you can run with > irqs disabled. I should probably have written "unlinked with irqs > disabled". > > And the attached patch works just fine, removing that inappropriate > restriction. At least in the "rmmod" case I saw.
The patch uses spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() along with a call to wait_event(). What happens if you end up calling wait_event() with interrupts disabled? Would it be better simply to spin? Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
