Am Sonntag, 7. Dezember 2003 22:21 schrieb Duncan Sands:
> Hi Alan, thanks for bringing up this subject.
Yes. This is the third or fourth time this is coming under discussion
and we have never reached a conclusion.
[..]
> completion handlers have been run. If someone has already started
> unlinking the urb, so much the better: the call should wait until that has
> finished, then return.
More than that. New submissions of that URB must fail, or the newly
submitted URB unlinked, if the completion handler has won the race.
[..]
> I bet nobody checks the return code because they expect the core to
> do whatever it takes to unlink the urb - even if it takes a long time.
> After all, by specifying "synchronous" they've stated that they are
> prepared to wait.
In many cases it is very awkward to handle this. Essentially if you
want to be safe in all cases, including rmmod, you must write a
monster and always end with complete_and_exit().
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
