Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2001 01:34 schrieben Sie:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2001, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > > > f) no problem at all.  this is as designed
> > >
> > > It's probably a design flaw.
> >
> > Maybe we should abandon the idea of using a filesystem for this and have
> > a driver for an "usb generic" device ? The amount of special casing would
> > be reduced.
>
> Not necessarily. Using a custom filesystem, versus a device node still
> ends up using an ioctl(), read(), or the like.
>
> You still have the same issues.

Only if you don't have the generic driver do a regular probe with acceptance 
which is protected through the semaphores already in place.
The only problem you have then is that a generic driver would need to give up 
its devices whenever a new driver is probed. But that problem is not harder 
than dealing with disconnect.

> Thomas had some good reasons at the time for using a filesystem. I think
> I may still have the conversation somewhere. It mostly applied to
> locking and race conditions being easier to control with a filesystem.

Are they archived somewhere ?
As is, there are two ways to access USB devices. This is inherently harder to 
get right. Thus IMHO it is right to question the reasons from time to time.

        Regards
                Oliver

_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel

Reply via email to