On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. 'Give up' meaning what? If we reschedule the tasklet, it'll just try again (and fail again), won't it? > Regards > Oliver -- Elly -- 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
