On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> This might also be one of the false positives I reworked the code in > >> 2.6.34 to fix, by putting different attributes in different sysfs > >> classes but it doesn't look like it. > > > > Are you sure? It kind of looks like it to me. Maybe the fix wasn't > > present in the kernel Dave was running. > > Given your description this does look like a false positive. > > Rereading the code it looks like my error was not in reading into > usb_disable_device and realizing that the children of the disabled > device would be removed. > > I think we will still have a false positive in 2.6.34 if one the > children also has an instance of the bConfigurationValue attribute. As > all attributes are made to live in the same lockdep class. That can certainly happen. In fact, you can test it yourself easily enough if you have a USB device. Just plug it in and do: echo 0 >/sys/bus/usb/devices/usbN/bConfigurationValue where N is the number of the USB bus your device is attached to. 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
