2012/7/29 :
>> On 2012.07.28 15:51, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>> Compiled with -g compilation argument, not with --enable-debug-log
> Can you please give me some hints on how to compile libusbx with the right
> compiler
> options, that match with the Ubuntu directory scheme? No matter what
> combi
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Hans de Goede wrote:
> So Alan believes, and I agree, that the policy of handling the detaching
> of usbfs in a special way is a userspace decision. Note that we've 2
> racy things here btw:
>
> 1) Testing if a driver is bound and then doing a detach
>
> This can be fixed (i
> On 2012.07.28 15:51, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> I am a libusbx maintainer :-)
Sorry, I did not want to underestimate your position in the libusbx project.
> On 2012.07.28 15:51, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
> Different backtrace but they both indicate a crash in libusbx with no
> (direct) relation wit
Hi,
On 07/28/2012 06:40 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> If the usbfs driver is found LIBUSB_ERROR_NOT_FOUND will be
>> returned to indicate no driver was detached.
>
> What is the situation like for other platforms besides Linux,
Non of the other platforms support driver detach /
Hi,
On 07/28/2012 06:33 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> This patch fixes libusb_detach_kernel_driver to only detach "real"
>> kernel drivers and not the special usbfs driver
>
> Ignoring the race for now?
Yes, the race is mostly theoretical thing, where as one libusb app
stealing
