From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110222164458.C9F1665D3E@server.hemiola.co.uk>
References: <20110222151218.4A02965D3E@server.hemiola.co.uk>
	<AANLkTinnsrwtXyLmakRdCvaToQfAs=CbR40wf_fZtu_W@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110222164458.C9F1665D3E@server.hemiola.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:50:38 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikP9hODfcrqKEJsJQx-HrksY=dWCvM+qDJ_iRje@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] usb ohci question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b2ea8986-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

In general, there are more ilocks than needed, out of paranoia.
I don't have the code here now, but you might be right.

thanks

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:42 PM,  <rod@hemiola.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>But I think you found a bug.
>
> Ok, so maybe the first ilock/iunlock pair isn't needed? The controller
> can't see the task descriptors that have been chained on to the
> endpoint until the "tail" element of the endpoint descriptor is set,
> so any potential interrupts during the sequence won't affect anything.
>
> rod
>
>