From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261252AbUEJTPq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2004 15:15:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261263AbUEJTPq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2004 15:15:46 -0400 Received: from mail1.kontent.de ([81.88.34.36]:15775 "EHLO Mail1.KONTENT.De") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261252AbUEJTPo (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2004 15:15:44 -0400 From: Oliver Neukum To: Marcel Holtmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] hci-usb bugfix Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:15:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 Cc: Alan Stern , Sebastian Schmidt , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200405101836.35239.oliver@neukum.org> <1084207959.9639.23.camel@pegasus> In-Reply-To: <1084207959.9639.23.camel@pegasus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405102115.26504.oliver@neukum.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Montag, 10. Mai 2004 18:52 schrieb Marcel Holtmann: > Hi Oliver, > > > > > It looks like the problem is that hci_usb_disconnect() is trying to do too > > > > much. When called for the SCO interface it should simply return. > > > > > > I came to the same conclusion, but I used the attached patch. > > > > 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. Regards Oliver