Am Freitag, 2. Januar 2004 05:05 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > As this situations involve devices being added or removed, don't you need
> > the subsystem rw-semaphore anyway?
>
> No; the subsystem rw-semaphore is used by the driver model core when
> driver-model struct device's are added or removed. It is not held while
> usb_disconnect recurses through the tree of struct usb_device's, which is
> when usbdev->children[] gets used. It's only held during the time that an
> individual device or interface is unregistered.
Wasn't the driver model supposed to handle parent-children relations?
Very well, but I would still suggest a single semaphore (rw if you will)
for the whole tree, for two reasons.
- it is simple
- in error recovery by disabling ports we should (currently don't - but
that's a bug) go _up_ the tree.
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
