lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.4.32] usb-uhci.c failing "-"
    On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

    > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:33:26 +0100 (CET), Guennadi Liakhovetski <gl@dsa-ac.de> wrote:
    >
    > > Looks like a bug?
    >
    > > --- a/drivers/usb/host/usb-uhci.c Fri Jan 20 09:27:50 2006
    > > +++ b/drivers/usb/host/usb-uhci.c Fri Jan 20 09:28:05 2006
    > > @@ -2505,7 +2505,7 @@
    > > ((urb_priv_t*)urb->hcpriv)->flags=0;
    > > }
    > >
    > > - if ((urb->status != -ECONNABORTED) && (urb->status != ECONNRESET) &&
    > > + if ((urb->status != -ECONNABORTED) && (urb->status != -ECONNRESET) &&
    > > (urb->status != -ENOENT)) {
    >
    > This is not what the author intended, obviously. But I am not quite sure
    > what happens because of it. Seems like we unlink some things which are

    This is my concirn too. The current behaviour is in fact just

    > > - if ((urb->status != -ECONNABORTED) && (urb->status != ECONNRESET) &&
    > > + if ((urb->status != -ECONNABORTED) &&
    > > (urb->status != -ENOENT)) {

    and nobody complains...:-) So, maybe this would be the right fix? At least
    safe in that it cannot break anything:-) But I don't understand that code
    very well. E.g., I don't understand why about 15 lines above the code in
    question

    if (urb->complete) {
    //dbg("process_interrupt: calling completion, status %i",status);
    urb->status = status;

    i.e., if (!urb->completion) urb->status is not set, so, depending on
    whether the urb has ->completion either the old or the new status will be
    tested. Is this really correct? And a couple lines above that "goto
    recycle;" is superfluous...

    Thanks
    Guennadi

    > about to return anyway... and then return -104 instead of -84. This
    > may be relatively harmless. At worst, the driver resubmits and gets
    > its -84 that way.
    >
    > I vote to apply this and see what happens. We are early in 2.4.33 cycle,
    > so it should be safe.
    >
    > -- Pete
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    >

    ---
    Guennadi Liakhovetski
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-22 01:17    [W:0.026 / U:267.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site