From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261231AbTD3AcO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:32:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261232AbTD3AcO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:32:14 -0400 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]:35717 "EHLO numenor.qualcomm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261231AbTD3AcN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:32:13 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030429152151.10dc8db0@unixmail.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:44:21 -0700 To: Greg KH , oliver@neukum.name From: Max Krasnyansky Subject: Re: [Bluetooth] HCI USB driver update. Support for SCO over HCI USB. Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20030429214004.GA8891@kroah.com> References: <200304292334.19447.oliver@neukum.org> <200304290317.h3T3HOdA027579@hera.kernel.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20030429131303.10d7f330@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <20030429211550.GA8669@kroah.com> <200304292334.19447.oliver@neukum.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 02:40 PM 4/29/2003, Greg KH wrote: >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. Uh, I didn't think about that one. This stuff was first implemented for 2.4 which didn't have refcount in urb and then forward ported to 2.5. >We can't init it to a high value, if we want to use it ourself in >usb_alloc_urb(). > >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. > >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... Thanks. I'll wear bullet proof shoes, just in case :-). Max