Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: device model documentation 2/3

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

Hi!

> What did seem to be missing was anything saying whether
> those device methods would be called in_interrupt() or
> whether instead they could sleep.  I'd hope all of them
> would be specified to allow blocking as needed, like their
> current analogues in PCI and USB.

Look better, it was there.

> Also, there was some mention not that long ago about
> desirability of some kind of device abort() call.  That
> would differ from the current remove() call because an
> abort() would pass the explicit knowledge that hardware
> was gone ... unplugged before driver shutdown, for one
> example.  That could also be achieved using some kind
> of mode parameter to remove() -- perhaps three values,
> saying whether the hardware was present, removed, or
> in some indeterminate state.

I'd prefer parameter to remove...

Your hardware may die physically, and driver should try to be able to
remove() even if hardware dies.
							Pavel
-- 
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.

_______________________________________________________________

Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm

_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel