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

Pavel Machek
2002-06-06T19:24:44Z

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.