Am Montag, 2. August 2010, 15:31:33 schrieb Elly Jones: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Montag, 26. Juli 2010, 17:13:23 schrieb Alan Stern: > >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Elly Jones wrote: > >> > >> > > This isn't right. The problem should be fixed some other way. Under > >> > > what circumstances are URBs submitted incorrectly? > >> > > >> > When the device is autosuspended. What is the proper thing for a > >> > device to do here? > >> > >> From looking at the code, it appears that the EVENT_DEV_ASLEEP flag > >> should be tested in usbnet_bh() the way it is in rx_submit(). But I'm > >> not an expert on usbnet; we should ask someone who is, like Oliver. > > > > Sorry, I didn't notice this thread. > > > > The correct way to check for autosuspend in usbnet is to look > > at EVENT_DEV_ASLEEP under txq.lock. That being said, usbnet_bh() > > uses rx_submit() which does the correct check. The bug seems to be > > a lack of error handling in usbnet_bh() regarding the return of rx_submit() > > If rx_submit() fails, should usbnet_bh() just not tasklet_schedule() itself? That would not work unless the cause of the failure would be removed. If you get -ENOLINK the sane option seems to me to give up. Regards Oliver -- 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
