Hi Alan, On 10/27/2021 7:24 AM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 07:50:24PM -0700, Wesley Cheng wrote: >> The usb_ep_disable() routine is being widely used directly in the >> disconnect callback path by function drivers. Hence, the statement >> about it being able to only run in process context may not be true. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wesley Cheng <quic_wcheng@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c | 2 -- >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c >> index d626511..e1f90d8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c >> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/core.c >> @@ -136,8 +136,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_ep_enable); >> * gadget drivers must call usb_ep_enable() again before queueing >> * requests to the endpoint. >> * >> - * This routine must be called in process context. >> - * >> * returns zero, or a negative error code. >> */ >> int usb_ep_disable(struct usb_ep *ep) > > You should also change the kerneldoc for usb_ep_enable. Neither routine > needs to be called in process context. > > In fact, it might be good to change both comments to: > > * This routine may be called in an atomic (interrupt) context. > > just to be totally explicit. > Ah, missed the ep enable case as well, thanks for the catch. Sounds good, I'll add that statement. Thanks Wesley Cheng
