On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:59:00PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2010 17:32:17 schrieb Alan Stern: > > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > If we do this unconditionally blocking disconnect is a bad idea. We'd > > > > better introduce a new ioctl, like USBDEVFS_RELEASE_IDLE_INTERFACE, > > > > to lave user space the option to kick a driver off a busy device. > > > > > > > > > > Introducing a new ioctl which can be blocked by the drivers would be fine > > > with me. I'm in contact with the libgphoto2 devs (I mostly to the kernel > > > webcam driver side myself), and I'm sure I can sell that to them :) > > > > How would such an ioctl work? The usbfs code has no way of knowing > > whether an interface is currently idle. > > Indeed, it would need support from some drivers in form of a flag > or a callback. For the majority of drivers, we can hook into usb_open(). Most USB drivers do not use usb_open(). > By the way, this doesn't mean I am sure it should be done, just that > if it is done, that would be the better way. I still think it should not be done :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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
