Hi,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 6:43 AM Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:27:27PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > +
> > +static
> > +int r8152_control_msg(struct usb_device *udev, unsigned int pipe, __u8 request,
> > + __u8 requesttype, __u16 value, __u16 index, void *data,
> > + __u16 size, const char *msg_tag)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < REGISTER_ACCESS_TRIES; i++) {
> > + ret = usb_control_msg(udev, pipe, request, requesttype,
> > + value, index, data, size,
> > + USB_CTRL_GET_TIMEOUT);
> > +
> > + /* No need to retry or spam errors if the USB device got
> > + * unplugged; just return immediately.
> > + */
> > + if (udev->state == USB_STATE_NOTATTACHED)
> > + return ret;
>
> Rather than testing udev->state, it would be better to check whether
> ret == -ENODEV. udev->state is meant primarily for use by the USB core
> and it's subject to races.
Thanks for looking my patch over!
Happy to change this to -ENODEV. In my early drafts of this patch I
looked at -ENODEV but I noticed that other places in the driver were
checking `udev->state == USB_STATE_NOTATTACHED` so I changed it. In
reality I think for this code path it doesn't matter a whole lot. The
only thing it's doing is avoiding a few extra retries and avoiding a
log message. :-)
I'll wait a few more days to see if there is any other feedback on
this series and then send a new version with that addressed. If
someone needs me to send a new version sooner then please yell.
-Doug
