Am Dienstag, den 26.05.2020, 21:57 +0200 schrieb Jean Rene Dawin: > Oliver Neukum wrote on Tue 26/05/20 13:13: > > Hi, > > > > may I ask whether you did the test with removing the battery twice with > > an older kernel? Could you please go back to > > f6cc6093a729ede1ff5658b493237c42b82ba107 > > and repeat the test of a second battery removal with that state? > > I just cannot find anything pointing to a change that could cause > > this issue within that time. > > Hi, > > testing with f6cc6093a729ede1ff5658b493237c42b82ba107 looks like this: OK, we have two possibilities here. Either a4e7279cd1d19f48f0af2a10ed020febaa9ac092 or 0afccd7601514c4b83d8cc58c740089cc447051d have had a really wierd effect, or they introduced a bug that hid a later bug. Can I ask you to run a complicated test to decide between these possibilities? Could you test a4e7279cd1d19f48f0af2a10ed020febaa9ac092 together with the patch I sent you applied on top? > Interesting is, that at the second time, the usb disconnect message > conmes first, and then a message from cdc_acm acm_port_activate. Basically you are deliberately creating a race condition between error handling and disconnect. That is a feature of the HC design. Regards Oliver
