On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote: > Since December, gadget-2.6 has had that particular non-gadget change > (address0_sem scope shrank the rest of the way) along with others. > Until I added the suspend/resume stuff, last week "hub.c" had only > reset changes.
You're right. I don't know why I thought that change hadn't been made. Maybe I'm going blind... > Unless I mis-understand you, yes that's true. My question is mostly > this: should I submit that basic rewrite of usb_reset_device() myself, > or do you want to be the only one submitting such patches starting now? > I'd kind of prefer the latter (just to avoid re-testing). I'll take care of it. The first step will be a patch that copies the connect-change/device-reset stuff from gadget-2.6's hub.c. > >>You might not have noticed that the CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND patch (revision > >>upcoming) has also started to follow that new lock hierarchy model. > > > > > > No, in fact I didn't see any parts of that patch that traversed the device > > tree. > > From hub to child ... dev->serialize protecting usbdev->children[]. Ah, yes, there it is... thank you for pointing it out. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
