Hi!

> > What's wrong with this?  We need to hold the spinlock to prevent the
> > disconnect function from proceeding while we are using the device.
> 
> If you want to protect against the disconnect thread, you need
> a semaphore, not a spinlock.

Thomas, is even semaphore neccessary? As I see it, disconnect can only
be called when we block, and re-checking pointers after each blocking
operation seems easy enough.
                                                                Pavel
-- 
The best software in life is free (not shareware)!              Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to