> > see, is that it would let drivers know ASAP when a device had been
> > disconnected and it would tell the core to stop accepting URBs for that
> > device. Is that sufficient justification?
>
> I'd describe it a bit differently: it ensures that the first phase of
> disconnection (preventing new URB submissions) completes, for any/all
> devices, before anything needs to block for the second or third phases
> (which can take an arbitrarily long time because they need dev->serialize
> and the third phase calls driver disconnect methods).
>
> That is IMO a good thing, since there is absolutely no benefit to
> letting even one more URB be submitted. And because the device is
> automatically quiescing from that point on, this prevents certain
> classes of bugs appearing in shutdown processing.
Yes, that is true. But, maybe I am dense, but why can't this be done
by making state atomic or protect it by a spinlock?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
