Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Am Sonntag, 24. Juni 2012, 11:34:19 schrieb Bjørn Mork: > >> Sorry, I did not understand what you meant we should do here. The >extra >> usb_set_intfdata(, NULL) in usbnet_disconnect() won't make any >> difference for that piece of code, will it? > >The point is that if it may be set to NULL, we always want it to be set >to >NULL, so we catch bugs. > >> And the USB core ensures that intfdata is set to NULL before any >> reprobing, so that will never be a problem. That's the reason why it >> seems redundant setting it in usbnet_disconnect(). > >The point is that if there is a problem because intfdata is set to >NULL, >there is very likely a problem in form of a race condition, if intfdata >were not set to NULL in usbnet's disconnect handler. Thanks for explaining. Yes, that makes sense to me as well. So then the original patch against qmi_wwan should go in, and we should leave usbnet as it is. Are everyone comfortable with that? Bjørn -- 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
