On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:38:54PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
>
> I can make a new patch which is a bit more conservative until I (and
> hopefully someone else) can look at the proc_disconnectsignal change as
> well.
If you really want to. If it's not going to help out anyone, I wouldn't
was
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:56:20PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > Right now, a user which has read privileges to usbdevfs devices can't get
> > the driver bound to an interface via the usbdevfs interface.
> >
> > However, it is exposed
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:56:20PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> Right now, a user which has read privileges to usbdevfs devices can't get
> the driver bound to an interface via the usbdevfs interface.
>
> However, it is exposed via the devices file so I don't think this is on
> purpose.
>
> W
Right now, a user which has read privileges to usbdevfs devices can't get
the driver bound to an interface via the usbdevfs interface.
However, it is exposed via the devices file so I don't think this is on
purpose.
Would a patch like this be acceptable? (Untested, but it compiles)
JE
= de
