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