Dan, the little gem that you quote belongs to David-B.
I was shocked what I saw it too. However, I let it pass
unchallenged upon David's authority, just ranted loud
about idiotic API of USB (w.r.t. freeing inside a callback).
Here is the thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=98581009700001&w=2&r=1
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=98580988401128&w=2
-- Pete
> From: Dan Streetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Linux-USB development mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Johannes Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 23:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
>
> I think that holding the urb's spinlock is bad if that urb
> will ever be used again; although maybe I'm missing something...
> I'm also not clear on why urb is being NULLed...
>
> --- 2.4.4-clean/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c Fri Apr 27 18:13:07 2001
> +++ linux/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c Thu May 17 23:16:19 2001
> @@ -2639,14 +2639,12 @@
> if (is_ring && !was_unlinked && !contains_killed) {
> urb->dev=usb_dev;
> uhci_submit_urb (urb);
> - } else
> - urb = 0;
> + }
> spin_lock(&s->urb_list_lock);
> }
>
> usb_dec_dev_use (usb_dev);
> - if (urb)
> - spin_unlock(&urb->lock);
> + spin_unlock(&urb->lock);
> }
> }
>
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
