On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > By the way, what is your application? And doesn't it turn out that you > > naturally want to hold a private lock during these calls anyway? > > I am looking at usbnet. And it turns out that I don't want locking. > That's what it looks like now. I suspect you want locking in character > devices and drivers that reuse URB(s). > If you have flow control in an upper layer and free completed URBs > I suspect locking is an unnecessary complication. > You are looking at the serial layer too often. It makes you think locking > is natural here ;-) Actually these thoughts were formulated long before I started looking in detail at the serial layer... Also, I noticed that you didn't post the get_interface_async parts. Are they protected by a lock? Yes, it had occurred to me that a natural use case would involve locking in only one of the two sides. Anyway, I'll work on a patch to convert the value to atomic_t. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
