From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265045AbUELNRA (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 09:17:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265044AbUELNQ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 09:16:59 -0400 Received: from coyote.holtmann.net ([217.160.111.169]:29831 "EHLO mail.holtmann.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265050AbUELNQJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 09:16:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] hci-usb bugfix From: Marcel Holtmann To: Soeren Sonnenburg Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1084260638.4599.20.camel@localhost> References: <20040509194715.GA2163@eniac.lan.yath.eu.org> <1084185635.4017.5.camel@pegasus> <1084260638.4599.20.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1084367731.25099.13.camel@pegasus> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:15:31 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Soeren, > well, at least I tried like 5 times plugin/out and it did not oops :) this is good news. > hmhh why is the device address always incrementing ? Ask the USB guys. I don't know it. > > > usb 2-1: USB disconnect, address 4 > > > usb 2-1: new full speed USB device using address 5 > > > devfs_mk_dev: could not append to parent for bluetooth/rfcomm/0 > > > devfs_remove: bluetooth/rfcomm/0 not found, cannot remove > > > Call trace: > > > [c00099c4] dump_stack+0x18/0x28 > > > [c010af1c] devfs_remove+0xcc/0xd0 > > > [c01e4a5c] tty_unregister_device+0x30/0x5c > > > [f2080b64] rfcomm_dev_destruct+0x50/0xd4 [rfcomm] > > > [f2081310] rfcomm_release_dev+0xf8/0x148 [rfcomm] > > > [f20807a8] rfcomm_sock_ioctl+0x34/0x58 [rfcomm] > > > [c02a8668] sock_ioctl+0xc0/0x2c0 > > > [c00726e0] sys_ioctl+0x100/0x318 > > > [c0005d60] ret_from_syscall+0x0/0x44 > > > usb 2-1: USB disconnect, address 5 > > > > Do you use DevFS? Does the same problem exists if you disable it and use > > udev instead? > > ok, so I went to udev and also no oops so far... If you still want to use DevFS you have to investigate by yourself, because DevFS is obsolete and I don't really care about it. Regards Marcel