Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 17:22 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:44:32PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, den 30.03.2021, 16:38 +0200 schrieb Johan Hovold: > > > @@ -1115,6 +1161,8 @@ static void usb_serial_disconnect(struct usb_interface *interface) > > > if (serial->type->disconnect) > > > serial->type->disconnect(serial); > > > > > > + release_sibling(serial, interface); > > > + > > > /* let the last holder of this object cause it to be cleaned up */ > > > usb_serial_put(serial); > > > dev_info(dev, "device disconnected\n"); > > > > Hi, > > > > does this assume you are called for the original interface first? > > No, I handle either interface being unbound first (e.g. see > release_sibling()). > > > I am afraid that is an assumption you cannot make. In fact, if somebody > > is doing odd things with sysfs you cannot even assume both will see a > > disconnect() > > Right, but disconnect() will still be called also for the sibling > interface as part of release_sibling() above. OK, sorry I overlooked that. Regards Oliver
