On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:22:21PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > That's not clear to me. Preventing disconnect() from running _is_ an > > unavoidable need. And I don't see any significant difference between > > using usbdev->serialize to delay disconnect from being called and using a > > driver-internal semaphore to delay disconnect from returning. Both > > actions will block the core and at approximately the same place. > > But much more flexibly. Drivers need a method to block disconnect > for _all_ devices, eg. to protect a device list. Forcing them to share > with the core is bad.
device lists are so 2.4... They are no longer needed anymore :) thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
