Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 20:59 schrieb Alan Stern: > > 2. I would prefer to have exclusion between open and reset, too. > > Why? I can understand wanting exclusion between read/write and reset. > But there's no obvious reason to make open and reset exclusive.
I don't think we'd want mutual exclusion in these cases. In fact read/write should fail in case a device is being reset or has been reseted. The most likely cause is error handling, so we must assume the device is malfounctioning. But coming into such a situation is bad, hence I'd like to delay open(). > Oh yes, there's one other thing you need to know. I haven't documented it > yet, and so far it exists only as part of a patch in Greg's input queue: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=117580359813254&w=2 I am looking into it. > There's actually quite a lot of overlap between suspend() and pre_reset() > as well as between resume() and post_reset(). In fact, I would expect in > many drivers the suspend() and pre_reset() method pointers could point to > the same subroutine, which would need only to quiesce the driver. Yes. Regards Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
