Re: [PATCH] hci-usb bugfix
From: Marcel Holtmann
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 14:42:09 EST
> > > Which is wrong. It assumes that interfaces are disconnected in a certain
> > > order, which happens only by chance in your case.
> > why is it wrong? If interface 0 is disconnected first then we go into
> > the disconnect routine and cleanup. But if interface 1 is disconnected
> > first, we don't do anything and "wait" for the disconnect on first
> > interface.
> Which not necessarily will ever come. It is possible that just one
> interface is disconnected.
which results in the same as if we set NULL for the private pointer when
we claim the second interface. If this really happens then we have more
problems in the driver itself, because this case won't be handled in
either way. However I don't think that this will happen, because for
Bluetooth devices interface 0 and 1 can be seen as a unit. The only
reason that this was split over two interfaces, was that you don't have
to stop the bulk transfers when you change the altsetting on the second
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/