Am Samstag, 26. Juni 2004 17:56 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > 2. Users want another private pointer in struct urb.
>
> > As for a second pointer, although I agreed at first, I've now changed
> > my mind. It seems to me that the common pattern of use of the context
> > pointer of struct urb is stupid. In almost all cases we point it at a device
> > descriptor. This is quite odd, as the URB as addressed at a specific device.
> > We have a claim/unclaim model for interfaces, so an interface for which
> > there are active URBs should always have one and exactly one descriptor
> > associated with it. We should use that information and let urb->context
> > point at the associated scsi request or skb.
> > Comments?
>
> I don't understand the point of your comment. Are you saying that with
> more effective use of urb->context a second pointer wouldn't be needed?
Yes.
> And are you saying that the associated scsi request or skb would contain a
> pointer back to the interface, making it unnecessary for urb->context to
No. The URB is intended for an interface conceptually. That interface
should carry a pointer to a private device structure, not the URB.
> point to the private device structure? What about URBs that aren't
> associated with a scsi request or skb? -- there are a lot of them.
They can leave context NULL.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
