On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:27:20 +0100, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Originally, I considered freeing more memory at disconnect(). > It turned out harder than I thought. I can add it to the port's data > if you like. There's no contradiction with in-struct poson and freeing it. It's different from an attept to lock with an in-struct lock, because you would have to access lock after you free. Please, take a look at drivers/block/ub.c. > > > +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(usbserial_henchman); > > > > Why is this static instead of per-serial? > > Overkill. Unnecessary wakeups will be very rare, but the structure would > grow and need initialisation. I feel uneasy about doing this, but if you say so... -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
