On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:39:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:51:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > At first glance, I think this can all be cleaned up, but it will take a > > bit of tree-wide work. I agree, we need a "read this message and error > > if the whole thing is not there", as well as a "send this message and > > error if the whole thing was not sent", and also a way to handle > > stack-provided data, which seems to be the primary reason subsystems > > wrap this call (they want to make it easier on their drivers to use it.) > > > > Let me think about this in more detail, but maybe something like: > > usb_control_msg_read() > > usb_control_msg_send() > > is a good first step (as the caller knows this) and stack provided data > > would be allowed, and it would return an error if the whole message was > > not read/sent properly. That way we can start converting everything > > over to a sane, and checkable, api and remove a bunch of wrapper > > functions as well. > > Suggestion: _read and _send are not a natural pair. Consider instead > _read and _write. _recv and _send don't feel right either, because it > both cases the host sends the control message -- the difference lies > in who sends the data. Yes, naming is hard :) usb_control_read_msg() usb_control_write_msg() feels good to me, let me try this out and see if it actually makes sense to do this on a few in-usb-core files and various drivers... thanks, greg k-h
