From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 22:31:46 -0500 (EST) > From: Hayes Wang <hayeswang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:31:14 +0000 > >> My last method which I mentioned yesterday is similar to >> this one. The difference is that I would re-use the rx >> buffers, so I have to add them to the list for re-submitting, >> not alwayes allocate new one. >> >> Although one rx buffer could contain many packets, I don't >> think the whole size of the rx buffer is alwayes used. >> Therefore, I re-use the rx buffers to avoid allocating >> the 16K bytes rx buffer alwayes. This also makes sure that >> I always have the buffers to submit without allocating new >> one. >> >> If you could accept this, I would modify this patch by >> this way. > > I'll reread your original patch and think some more about this. What if even the first r8152_submit_rx() fails? What ever will cause any of these retries to trigger at all? Second, why does your patch increment 'i' with 'i++;' in the error break path? You should mark the first failed entry as unallocated with actual_length == 0 and place it on the rx_done queue. -- 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
