On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 10:07:48AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > 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. */
Applied, thanks. But please fix this up soon, I really don't like this restriction. thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- 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
