Re: new autosuspend code and callback
Alan Stern <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Hi, > > I thought about this. Could you live with simply protecting the business > flag in the interface structure with a spinlock? A new callback is indeed > overkill and all its advantages could be had this way, too. I don't understand the question. What would you need a spinlock for and how would it work? Remember, the device-busy (actually interface-busy) flag is _atomic_ and as such does not require any protection. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel