On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 3. August 2009 23:11:07 schrieb Alan Stern: > > The tasklet races with disconnection anyway. Why add a bunch of > > special code in this one spot? > > The alternative is to cache the pointer. I don't like making unnecessary > copies. It is safe with respect to disconnect as disconnect sets a flag. > Which solution would you suggest? Caching the pointer would make the routine behave just like it used to before the possibility of using an interrupt endpoint was added. That seems safest. 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
