On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 08:00:15PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> -EPERM should be handled like any other error.
Why? This is not "any other error" for the usb core, right?
>
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c
> index ec07b2017fb7..0ceb05f3884f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c
> @@ -366,7 +366,6 @@ u32 usb_read_port(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, struct recv_buf *precvbuf)
> struct usb_device *pusbd = pdvobj->pusbdev;
> int err;
> unsigned int pipe;
> - u32 ret = _SUCCESS;
>
> if (adapter->bDriverStopped || adapter->bSurpriseRemoved ||
> adapter->pwrctrlpriv.pnp_bstop_trx) {
> @@ -403,10 +402,10 @@ u32 usb_read_port(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, struct recv_buf *precvbuf)
> precvbuf);/* context is precvbuf */
>
> err = usb_submit_urb(purb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> - if ((err) && (err != (-EPERM)))
> - ret = _FAIL;
if -EPERM returns from this function, someone set the "reject" bit on
the urb.
Can this driver do that? Where did this check originally come from, as
it feels like this was added for a good reason.
If this patch is "correct", I need a better changelog text explaining
why it is so :)
thanks,
greg k-h
