Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:16:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Mochel <mochel@digitalimplant.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
cc: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>,
       Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: klists and struct device semaphores
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0503291055560.1038-100000@ida.rowland.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0503301814090.20992-100000@monsoon.he.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0503291055560.1038-100000@ida.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1226
Lines: 33


On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> > How is this related to (8) above? Do you need some sort of protected,
> > short path through the core to add the device, but not bind it or add it
> > to the PM core?
>
> Having thought it through, I believe all we need for USB support is this:
>
> 	Whenever usb_register() in the USB core calls driver_register()
> 	and the call filters down to driver_attach(), that routine
> 	should lock dev->parent->sem before calling driver_probe_device()
> 	(and unlock it afterward, of course).
>
> 	(For the corresponding remove pathway, where usb_deregister()
> 	calls driver_unregister(), it would be nice if __remove_driver()
> 	locked dev->parent->sem before calling device_release_driver().
> 	This is not really needed, however, since USB drivers aren't
> 	supposed to touch the device in their disconnect() method.)


Why can't you just lock it in ->probe() and ->remove() yourself?


	Pat

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