[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190903124527.GB493@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:45:27 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
Cc: Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>,
USB Storage list <usb-storage@...ts.one-eyed-alien.net>,
Dan Williams <dcbw@...hat.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: storage: Add ums-cros-aoa driver
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 12:04:03PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2019, 11:19 +0200 schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:46:14AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Am Montag, den 02.09.2019, 18:47 +0200 schrieb Greg KH:
> > > >
> > > > This should work just fine today. Add a new device id to the "new_id"
> > > > file and then tell the driver to bind. That's pretty much the same as a
> > > > "force_bind", right?
> > >
> > > That looks like a race condition by design to me.
> >
> > How?
>
> You have one of these files and potentially multiple devices
> to be bound. You need a locking scheme. As soon as the acts
> of specifying and binding are distinct.
What needs to be locked here?
totally confused,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists