> I am afraid I do not agree. Your reasoning is correct only on UP.
> If the code in question runs on another CPU, you are in trouble.
It all depends on the semantics of usb_unlink_urb. Consider the
patch below. Is this any better? Maybe not: if usb_unlink_urb
returns before the completion handler (running on another CPU)
reaches the tasklet_schedule statement, then what is to stop
the tasklet being scheduled by the completion handler after the
tasklet_kill? Nothing. So it all depends on whether or
not usb_unlink_urb guarantees that the completion handler has
finished running before it (usb_unlink_urb) returns.
Ciao, Duncan.
speedtouch: kill receive queue tasklet on shutdown.
speedtouch.c | 2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/misc/speedtouch.c b/drivers/usb/misc/speedtouch.c
--- a/drivers/usb/misc/speedtouch.c Fri Jan 10 13:10:47 2003
+++ b/drivers/usb/misc/speedtouch.c Fri Jan 10 13:10:47 2003
@@ -775,6 +775,8 @@
ctx->skb = NULL;
}
+ tasklet_kill (&instance->recvqueue_tasklet);
+
for (i = 0; i < UDSL_NUMBER_SND_URBS; i++) {
struct udsl_usb_send_data_context *ctx = &(instance->send_ctx[i]);
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
