Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] let BLK_DEV_UB depend on EMBEDDED

From: Matthew Dharm
Date: Mon Dec 20 2004 - 02:49:28 EST

On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 09:09:52PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> >On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:35:42 +0100, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What about a dependency of BLK_DEV_UB on USB_STORAGE=n ?
> >
> >
> >I have them both as 'm' in my configuration, works like a charm.
> ub can work like that, but it makes it darned difficult to
> use usb-storage like that. ub wants to bind to the devices,
> not usb-storage, and if ub is unloaded, usb-storage doesn't
> bind to them. at least that's been my experience with it.

Enabling CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB actually disables usb-storage from attaching to
certain devices, regardless of what's loaded or not.

I, personally, don't like this. But I wasn't consulted on that particular
feature. I'm given to understand that some bad things can happen when two
drivers can bind to the same device, but I haven't had time to experiment
with it.

I can tell you that this has turned into the single largest source of bug
reports/complaints about usb-storage. Something has to be done. I just
don't know what.


Matthew Dharm Home: mdharm-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

C: They kicked your ass, didn't they?
S: They were cheating!
-- The Chief and Stef
User Friendly, 11/19/1997

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature