On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 04:04:14PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> Hi Felipe, >> >> On 08/29/2014 10:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> >> The reason it doesn't apply is that you already applied v6 of my series >> to your testing/next tree: >> >> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/balbi/usb.git/commit/?h=testing/next&id=c52425b >> >> The currently pending discussion is about how to determine the size of >> the packets sent down to the host, and it only affects the last patch in >> the series. To summarize, here are the two approaches to do this: >> >> >> 1) We pre-calculate a pattern of lengths which is then followed when >> sending the packets. This is what Jassi implemented in his alternative >> approach to my version here: >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg112913.html >> >> This idea comes at the price of storing the pre-calculated sequence and >> track its state, which currently means adding 163 unsigned ints to the > > that's quite a lot :-) The version is this thread uses only 5 unsigned > ints though. > Sorry but doing the comparison in bytes, rather than variables, is silly. If I had kzalloc()'ed just enough bytes, you think that would have been 'optimal'? ;) Anyways I guess I have to just suck it up... -- 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
