> Wouldn't it be better to add a global spinlock for the v4l devices
> table? Is there a reason that it has to be the BKL?
A spinlock would be possible, too. Linus did _not_ accept a patch to do this
in times of 2.4.0-preX. Given that v4l'll probably be replaced with v4l2 and
disconnect is not
Oliver Neukum wrote:
> That would be insufficient, as v4l devices need not be usb devices.
OK, that makes more sense if it is protecting the video devices'
structures.
> The problem is not really in the usb code but in the v4l code.
> The v4l code is written under the impression that devices don'
> > It couldn't be to serialize the
> > disconnects of multiple devices, because that is done with the
> > dev->serialize semaphore in the code which calls the disconnect
> > function.
That would be insufficient, as v4l devices need not be usb devices.
> You really have to talk to Oliver Neukem
