On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> This patch adds comments on interface driver suspend callback >> to emphasize that the failure return value is ignored by >> USB core in system sleep context, so do not try to recover >> device for this case, otherwise the URB traffic scheduled >> in recovery of failure path may cross system sleep, and may >> cause problems. > > Well, an unexpected error did happen so problems are to be expected, > yes. > >> Also fixes the USB serial, HID and several usbnet drivers >> which may recover device in suspend failure path of system sleep. > > I believe all of these are wrong unless you have any real bug which is > fixed by this. It is really a bug if one driver submits URBs and keeps them scheduled on bus before system sleep, because the bus transaction can't be kept across system sleep cycle. > > All these drivers suspend in multiple steps, where each step can > fail. If a later step fails then they revert any previously successful > step before returning the failure, thereby ensuring that the > device/driver state when suspend returns is consistently either > suspended or resumed. IMO, for autosuspend, that is right, but it is not for system suspend, and the driver's suspend callback can't return in resumed state because the USB core will ignore the failure return value and force to suspend the device. > > The error recovery they do in suspend is not about preventing suspend at > all. It is about ensuring that that the driver and device is in a > consistent state, which is "resumed" if suspend fails. No, only putting the device as "suspended" in system suspend failure can keep the state as consistent, see the above explanation. > > Your patch set make the drivers return from suspend in some intermediate > state, where the device and/or driver is neither suspended nor resumed. > This is wrong. You still did not necessarily kill all URBs, but you > killed some of them. What is resume() going to do then? These patches try to avoid submitting new URBs in the failure path of system suspend, and we can comments these fixes in each patch one by one. > > I am going to NAK the cdc_mbim and qmi_wwan pacthes unless you can > convince me that we need to add a "partly-suspended" state for the > system suspend error case. In which case the patch will need to include > the corresponding resume fix for the "partly-suspended" state. > Yes, you may argue that the device might be in partly-suspended state, but it doesn't matter since the device will be put into suspend later and the resume callback can recover from the partly-suspend state. These patches doesn't break previous failure path of system suspend and just avoid to submit new URBs, so how about letting later delta patches fix for the corresponding resume? Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
