On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, David Brownell wrote: > Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > - in error recovery by disabling ports we should (currently don't - but > > that's a bug) go _up_ the tree. > > Why would that be? If code has a valid lock on a hub, to disable > or reset a port on that hub, why would it get a lock on the > parent of that hub?
For error recovery. If an attempt to disable the port fails, we can't simply leave things as they stand -- there will be an unaddressed device attached to the bus. It will be necessary to disconnect the entire hub to avoid problems. And doing that requires a lock on the hub's parent. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- 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
