On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Vrabel wrote: > If process A has an interface claimed and process B disconnects the > kernel driver then process B can also claim the interface. > > I think USBFSDEV_DISCONNECT shouldn't disconnect the usbfs driver. That statement certainly could be the subject of a prolonged discussion. Hence I'm CC-ing the libusb mailing list; people there may have some strong opinions on this matter. > Something like this (untested) patch. Is this the correct approach or > should userspace processes be more co-operative? e.g., by making > libusb's libusb_kernel_driver_active() returning false if driver == > "usbfs" and expecting users to only call libusb_detach_kernel_driver() > if one is active. There might be programs which really _do_ want to unbind other programs, so ruling out that capability in the kernel is likely to be a mistake. My preference is to let userspace sort this out. 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
