Am Dienstag, 4. August 2009 00:04:57 schrieb Alan Stern: > 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. But it would break the devices for which that possibility was added. Regards Oliver -- 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
