On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 17:01 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > - request_module() is icky. I keep wanting to get rid of that
> > function, and really don't want to see any further users get added.
> > But that's just my feeling, if there's no other way to do this, I
> > don't mind.
>
>
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> Patch is attached. I would like someone to look it over and challenge it.
> The thing looks too complex to me, but I see no other way. Anyone?
OK, so I'm not very familiar with a lot of the code affected here, but
since it diddles with unusual_devs, I feel I should chime in.
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:52:00 -0700, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, fair enough, but it is nice at times to mix ub and usb-storage
> device controlled devices.
I mixed them just fine, as long as the protocol was different.
The difference now is how we can split devices with same protocol
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> If so, a few comments.
> - This only covers the "which module to load" question. Once the
> module is loaded, it still always grabs the storage devices, even if
> another module is loaded later on. Isn't that still the same issue
> we have toda
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> In my tree, I always use the following patchlet, which deconflicts
> ub and usb-storage:
...
> This makes hotplug to function in a deterministic way, which is a good
> thing. The patch is not in Linus' tree. It was there at one point,
> but Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 08:55:59PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> This makes hotplug to function in a deterministic way, which is a good
> thing. The patch is not in Linus' tree. It was there at one point,
> but Adrian Bunk removed it.
I also did not like that patch.
> Why? Because he could not be
