On Thursday 20 January 2005 11:35 am, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:34 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not like to refer to a dev because I do not quite understand where
> the necessary usb_dev_get/_put are now. But if you guarantee that the
> urb->dev is refcounted properly while urb is processed by
> usb_hcd_giveback_urb,
> I do not mind an extra indirection.
We have no reason to suspect bugs there; if there were any,
lots of things would have been breaking for a long time now.
> What would be the right test in usb_hcd_giveback_urb, then?
> It looks to me that you want me to use this:
>
> urb_is_for_root_hub(urb) {
Actually it'd be more like dev_is_root_hub(dev, bus), since
both values are readily at hand -- you're basically just
wanting to wrap "dev == hcd->self.root_hub" in most cases.
Though I'm still not clear why you'd want to change that
working code; nothing's broken now, after all.
By the way ... on the topic of usbmon rather than changing
usbcore, is there a brief writeup of what you want this
new version to be doing -- and how? Like, why put the
spy hooks in that location, rather than any of the other
choices. (Many of them would be less surprising to me!)
- Dave
> return urb->dev == urb->dev->bus->hcpriv->self.root_hub;
> }
>
> This is just ... ewwwww. Can we use pipe for now or do you have
> a better idea?
>
> -- Pete
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
