On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> Could you add a comment there that the HCD is
> now _required_ to return a pointer that usbcore
> can pass to kfree? Since that's a layering
> violation (in anticipation of later changes to
> make it not be one!), it's surprising ... and
> in any case, the memory lifecycle is no longer
> described just by the calls in this header!
That's a reasonable request, and here's an extra patch to add the comment.
Hopefully Greg won't mind the unorthodox patch numbering!
Alan Stern
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===== drivers/usb/core/hcd.h 1.91 vs edited =====
--- 1.91/drivers/usb/core/hcd.h 2004-10-20 12:53:13 -04:00
+++ edited/drivers/usb/core/hcd.h 2004-10-28 11:26:59 -04:00
@@ -191,6 +191,12 @@
int (*get_frame_number) (struct usb_hcd *hcd);
/* memory lifecycle */
+ /* Note: The absence of hcd_free reflects a temporary situation;
+ * in the near future hcd_alloc will disappear as well and all
+ * allocations/deallocations will be handled by usbcore. For the
+ * moment, drivers are required to return a pointer that the core
+ * can pass to kfree, i.e., the struct usb_hcd must be the _first_
+ * member of a larger driver-specific structure. */
struct usb_hcd *(*hcd_alloc) (void);
/* manage i/o requests, device state */
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE
LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
