Hi Felipe On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 07:09:03PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> Restructure some code to make it easier to read. >> >> While at it, return -ENOMEM instead of -EINVAL if >> usb_ep_alloc_request() fails, and omit the logging in such cases >> (the mm core will complain loud enough). >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <zonque@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > does this depend on anything ? It doesn't apply to my testing/next > There's v6 of the patchset here http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg112769.html though the 1-4 patches are probably same. For Patchv6-5/5 we need either http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg112773.html or http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg112913.html I and Daniel feel strongly about how we implement data rate control. Please share your decision making. Thanks Jassi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
