On Wednesday 30 March 2005 21:16, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Patrick Mochel wrote: > > > > > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected, > > > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it > > > to the PM core? > > > > Having thought it through, I believe all we need for USB support is this: > > > > Whenever usb_register() in the USB core calls driver_register() > > and the call filters down to driver_attach(), that routine > > should lock dev->parent->sem before calling driver_probe_device() > > (and unlock it afterward, of course). > > > > (For the corresponding remove pathway, where usb_deregister() > > calls driver_unregister(), it would be nice if __remove_driver() > > locked dev->parent->sem before calling device_release_driver(). > > This is not really needed, however, since USB drivers aren't > > supposed to touch the device in their disconnect() method.) > > > Why can't you just lock it in ->probe() and ->remove() yourself? >
Will the lock be exported (via helper functions)? I always felt dirty using subsys.rwsem because it I think it was supposed to be implementation detail. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
