Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [OOPS, usbcore, releaseintf] 2.6.0-test10-mm1

[Oliver Neukum]

Am Freitag, 12. Dezember 2003 22:27 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> > Not so simple. Khubd goes down a list. If the first item on its list
> > is not your failed reset, a deadlock will occur.
> > 
> > After you have submitted the URB that really does the reset, you
> > are commited. You must either set a valid address or disable the port.
> > You can rely on nobody else to do that.
> 
> I think we agree on that.  It was never my intention that fixing up a 
> failure between the port reset and setting the device address should be 
> put off for later handling by khubd.  That would be done immediately.

OK.

> Hoever the consequent changes to the device structure (i.e., everything
> needed to reflect the fact that it is disconnected) could be done in
> another thread.

Please clarify. You have to disconnect() before you do the physical reset.
IMHO you should do the code paths for late errors and the device morphed
case in another thread, but what's the benefit for success?

	Regards
		Oliver

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/