Hi, On 09/02/2014 02:41 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: > 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. This is what Felipe used, but I in fact based my patches on the wrong branch. There's both 'testing/next' and 'next' remote branches, and I picked the latter. I'll quickly rebase and resend. > 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. Yeah, I'll describe that in the updated cover letter. I'm sure we'll find a good solution for that :) Thanks, Daniel -- 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
