What's so bad about freeing inside a callback? When else
would most drivers have all the facts in hand, so they know
that they're done using a given URB? Inquiring minds ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Zaitcev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dan Streetman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [patch] usb-uhci held spinlock
> 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
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
