On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:00:31AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > Fix the grammar in the patch title. > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > Instead of allocating space for the whole xhci_hcd structure at the end of > > usb_hcd, make the USB core allocate enough space for a pointer to the > > xhci_hcd structure. This will make it easy to share the xhci_hcd > > structure across the two roothubs (the USB 3.0 usb_hcd and the USB 2.0 > > usb_hcd). This method of sharing the xhci_hcd pointer is better than > > modifying all xhci_functions to check whether the passed in usb_hcd > > contains the real xhci_hcd. > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c > > index ff65ea6..7577876 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci.c > > @@ -519,6 +519,8 @@ void xhci_stop(struct usb_hcd *hcd) > > xhci_mem_cleanup(xhci); > > xhci_dbg(xhci, "xhci_stop completed - status = %x\n", > > xhci_readl(xhci, &xhci->op_regs->status)); > > + kfree(xhci); > > + *((struct xhci_hcd **) hcd->hcd_priv) = NULL; > > } > > This is not a good idea. Since the xhci_hcd structure is allocated > very early in the life cycle, it should be deallocated very late. For > example, at the time when the usb_hcd structure is destroyed. It's difficult to figure out exactly where the xHCI private structure should be freed, which is why the free ended up in xhci_stop(). I don't want the USB core PCI code having to deallocate something the xHCI driver allocated. Perhaps I need to introduce a new HCD call, free_hcd_priv(), that is called in hcd_release()? It seems like a heavy-handed approach, but I'm not sure how else to do it. Sarah Sharp -- 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
