On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > From: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The usage of in_irq()/in_interrupt() in drivers is phased out for various > reasons. > > The context description for usb_gadget_giveback_request() is misleading as > in_interupt() means: hard interrupt or soft interrupt or bottom half > disabled regions. But it's also invoked from task context when endpoints > are torn down. Remove it as it's more confusing than helpful. > > Replace also the in_irq() comment with plain text. > > Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c > @@ -1754,8 +1754,9 @@ static int handle_control_request(struct > return ret_val; > } > > -/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to > - * both drivers except the callbacks aren't in_irq(). > +/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to both > + * drivers except that the callbacks are invoked from soft interrupt > + * context. > */ You might as well fix the formatting of the multiline comment while you're changing its content. Alan Stern
