Am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2006 23:55 schrieb David Brownell:
> Maybe it'd be good to ask over on netdev whether that argument shouldn't
> be applied to pretty much every network driver...
Yes
> That said, I don't see an obvious race there. If the device disconnects,
> there's now a guarantee that all pending urbs will have completed before
> the driver disconnect() method is called. (As of maybe 2.6.8 or so. The
Even in case of disconnect by sysfs or usbfs?
> original 2.4 code of course couldn't rely on such guarantees. The lack of
> such guarantees meant a seemingly endless supply of oops-on-disconnect bugs.)
>
> So there is no way that an URB completion can trigger with an invalid device
> handle, which is I think the race you implied. Even if one CPU were able to
> submit an URB after the TX queue stopped, there'd be no trouble.
Isn't that a memleak? If you can submit it without it completing, how can
you free it?
Regards
Oliver
_______________________________________________
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
