Hm, I am unsure. Couldn't we eliminate most uses of usb_unlink_urb() from 2.6 anyway?
A lot of them, probably yes. However there must be cases where drivers
want to unlink an URB because of a timeout rather than disconnection. usb-storage does that, but it always uses async unlinking.
Most drivers will unlink in disconnect() ... those are the calls that can be removed.
Another call site is in the release() method, when the user closes the last copy of a file descriptor. Those calls must stay.
David, can we rely on the core nuking URBs in all cases, even software driven disconnect?
Only on disconnect paths, and not in 2.6.0-final for that since it'll depend on Alan's uhci_endpoint_disable(), and maybe on a corresponding update to an API description to make clear that we're now _requiring_ that the endpoint disable not just kill all the requests, but also block until they complete.
- Dave
------------------------------------------------------- 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
