On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, David Brownell wrote:
Martin Diehl wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
We cannot prevent people from unplugging devices, which has the same
consequences. So why would we make provisions to keep root from doing
one more foolish thing?
Because -
OTOH I tend to agree with people saying module use count==0 indicates the
module is unused and thus can be safely removed. Personally I'd expect the
hcd's use count to increase with every interface claimed by client driver.
Thoughts?
usb_hcd_pci_remove should run and cause a disconnect
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
OTOH I tend to agree with people saying module use count==0 indicates the
module is unused and thus can be safely removed. Personally I'd expect the
hcd's use count to increase with every interface claimed by client driver.
Thoughts?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Martin Diehl wrote:
kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:1165!
Here probably the block or scsi layer is to blame.
What happens if you unplug the memory stick?
Agreed, the oops doesn't come from usb. But again, once we have the block
Forgot to confirm: yes, unplug triggers
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Martin Diehl wrote:
Agreed, the oops doesn't come from usb. But again, once we have the block
and scsi layer behaving with disappearing devices, there will still be fs
corruption - do we want this to happen because the hcd *appears* unused?
I agree. On the other hand,
Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 16:09 schrieb Martin Diehl:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
OTOH I tend to agree with people saying module use count==0 indicates the
module is unused and thus can be safely removed. Personally I'd expect the
hcd's use count to increase with every
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Martin Diehl wrote:
Agreed, the oops doesn't come from usb. But again, once we have the block
and scsi layer behaving with disappearing devices, there will still be fs
corruption - do we want this to happen because the hcd
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Yes sure. But do we really want people seeing the hcd reportedly unused to
rmmod their hcd and thus trigger an unintended disconnect - with corrupted
fs as a consequence?
We cannot prevent people from unplugging devices, which has the same
Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 18:36 schrieb Martin Diehl:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Yes sure. But do we really want people seeing the hcd reportedly unused to
rmmod their hcd and thus trigger an unintended disconnect - with corrupted
fs as a consequence?
We cannot
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:50:47PM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote:
I was expecting fs damage so the fs (FAT on usbstick) was mouted RO.
Unfortunatedly it's even worse: the box starts BUGging and OOPSing!
Tried with 2.6.0-test1 - log see below.
This is a scsi bug. Mike Anderson has a nice patch
Martin Diehl wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
We cannot prevent people from unplugging devices, which has the same
consequences. So why would we make provisions to keep root from doing
one more foolish thing?
Because - according to lsmod - the hcd is unused?
That seems to be how
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 06:45:03PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 18:36 schrieb Martin Diehl:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Yes sure. But do we really want people seeing the hcd reportedly unused to
rmmod their hcd and thus trigger an unintended
Am Freitag, 18. Juli 2003 16:44 schrieb Alan Stern:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Martin Diehl wrote:
Agreed, the oops doesn't come from usb. But again, once we have the block
and scsi layer behaving with disappearing devices, there will still be fs
corruption - do we want this to happen because
13 matches
Mail list logo
