From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261320AbTD2WML (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:12:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261326AbTD2WML (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:12:11 -0400 Received: from Mail1.KONTENT.De ([81.88.34.36]:37597 "EHLO Mail1.KONTENT.De") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261320AbTD2WMK (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:12:10 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum Reply-To: oliver@neukum.name To: Greg KH Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [Bluetooth] HCI USB driver update. Support for SCO over HCI USB. Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:24:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Max Krasnyansky , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <200304290317.h3T3HOdA027579@hera.kernel.org> <200304292334.19447.oliver@neukum.org> <20030429214004.GA8891@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20030429214004.GA8891@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304300024.26133.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 29. April 2003 23:40 schrieb Greg KH: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 11:34:19PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > +int usb_init_urb(struct urb *urb) > > > +{ > > > + if (!urb) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + memset(urb, 0, sizeof(*urb)); > > > + urb->count = (atomic_t)ATOMIC_INIT(1); > > > + spin_lock_init(&urb->lock); > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > Greg, please don't do it this way. Somebody will > > try to free this urb. If the urb is part of a structure > > this must not lead to a kfree. Please init it to some > > insanely high dummy value in this case. > > We can't init it to a high value, if we want to use it ourself in > usb_alloc_urb(). So don't or make that value a parameter. > And yes, I agree this is a very dangerous function to use on your own, > I thought I conveyed that in the documentation for the function. It's not any more dangerous than what worked quite well for 2.4. > But if we don't have such a function, then people like Max will just > roll their own, like he just did :) > > Might as well make it easy for him to shoot himself in the foot if he > really wants to... Sure, why not. Regards Oliver