On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> > usb_class->kref is not accessible outside the file.c
> > as usb_class is _static_ inside the file.c and
> > pointer of usb_class->kref is not passed anywhere.
> >
> > Hence as you wanted, there are no references of usb_class->kref
> > other than taken by
> On Thr, 2 Mar 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>
>> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
>> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class()
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>>>
> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class() in patch v3.
> If it is not right, please
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
> >>> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class() in patch v3.
> >>> If it is not right, please
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>>
>>> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
>>> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class() in patch v3.
>>> If it is not right, please explain in detail which race condition
>>> I have
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Ajay Kaher wrote:
>> Alan, as per my understanding I have shifted the lock from
>> release_usb_class() to destroy_usb_class() in patch v3.
>> If it is not right, please explain in detail which race condition
>> I have missed and