That's pretty much exactly what is being suggested. Leave the problem of very strange devices to specific drivers. The us->extra is there to help them out, but having arrays of pointers pushes more complexity into the core of usb-storage when it should be in the device-specific drivers.
Matt
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:43:40AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Matthew Dharm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But us->extra can only hold a single value.
>
> This isn't really true. If you implement them as different LUNs on the
> same unit, the SCSI layer won't allow them to both have a command active
> at once.
>
> Besides, the control thread for the unit will serialize the commands.
>
> OK.
>
> Still, such solutions (have a struct with two pointers and two
> destructor routines in us->extra; have the driver copy this to
> some local variables and replace us->extra when it calls the
> subdriver to do the work, and restore things again when the
> subdriver is done) feel extremely fragile and kludgy.
>
> You are not really suggesting the above?
>
>
> Andries
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
C: Why are you upgrading to NT?
AJ: It must be the sick, sadistic streak that runs through me.
-- Chief and A.J.
User Friendly, 5/12/1998
msg06225/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
