Re: [linux-usb-devel] Discussion of problems in usb-skeleton.c

2003-02-26 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, David Brownell wrote: Alan Stern wrote: Heck, I've barely had a chance to write it, let alone test it. In fact, it seemed clear that nobody had tried any testing recently. One of the minor bugs I fixed was a subroutine call that passed a structure rather than a

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Discussion of problems in usb-skeleton.c

2003-02-26 Thread Alan Stern
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Alan Stern wrote: As it turns out, this still generates a compiler warning. There's a mistake in the min() and max() macros in include/linux/kernel.h. I will post something about that on the linux kernel mailing list. I spoke too soon (don't you just hate it when that

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Discussion of problems in usb-skeleton.c

2003-02-25 Thread Alan Stern
This patch for usb-skeleton.c, based on earlier work of David Brownell, fixes a number of errors: Checking urb-status to see whether the urb had completed was racy and unsafe. The read transfer count was calculated wrong. An unused struct work_struct has been

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Discussion of problems in usb-skeleton.c

2003-02-22 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 01:12:47PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: I noticed that usb-skeleton.c still has a TODO entry referring to a race involving urb-status, so I took a closer look. Fixing that race will be easy, and I will be happy to submit a patch for it. But there are two other problems,

[linux-usb-devel] Discussion of problems in usb-skeleton.c

2003-02-21 Thread Alan Stern
I noticed that usb-skeleton.c still has a TODO entry referring to a race involving urb-status, so I took a closer look. Fixing that race will be easy, and I will be happy to submit a patch for it. But there are two other problems, partially related. Is it worthwhile to try to address them all?