On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:47:23PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 10:24:35AM -0800, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:05:40AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 11:37:40PM -0800, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > >
> > > > Here's some xHCI patches for 2.6.38, including the late bug fixes for
> > > > suspend and resume (which are marked for stable).
> > > >
> > > > There's also some patches from Andiry to fix some isochronous transfer
> > > > bugs, ring ownership issues, and some cleanup patches. Matthew Wilcox
> > > > also submitted a patch to shave off another register read on the URB
> > > > submission path, so that should give us an additional performance boost.
> > > > I've stress-tested this batch, and they look stable.
> > ...
> > > > drivers/usb/core/hcd-pci.c | 7 +++-
> > > > drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 19 +++++++++
> > > > drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > > > drivers/usb/host/xhci.c | 60 +++++++++++----------------
> > > > drivers/usb/host/xhci.h | 16 +++-----
> > > > include/linux/usb/hcd.h | 1 +
> > > > 6 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Something's really wrong here, I get a much different diffstat here, one
> > > that includes lots of non-usb patches (like the 2.6.37-rc7 release from
> > > Linus).
> > >
> > > Are you sure you generated this correctly? Care to retry it in a format
> > > that doesn't also merge with Linus's tree?
> >
> > I'm not sure what's up with that. I basically pulled down your usb-next
> > branch and then added these patches on top of them. I do see a merge
> > commit by you (2af1084) on usb-next that says you merged in 2.6.37-rc5
> > to avoid a conflict, but gitk shows you pulled in 2.6.37-rc7. The
> > for-usb-next branch is based on commit 2af1084.
>
> {sigh}
>
> You are right, my local development machine wasn't up to date, I'll go
> redo the pull and see if it's all sane in a few minutes, sorry for the
> noise...
Ok, I pulled, and the diff is correct, again, sorry about that.
But I think the code itself is wrong. Please always check that your
patches don't generate new build errors/warnings. Your patch to hub.c
looks very wrong:
drivers/usb/core/hub.c: In function âhub_activateâ:
drivers/usb/core/hub.c:731:8: warning: passing argument 1 of âhub_port_logical_disconnectâ from incompatible pointer type
drivers/usb/core/hub.c:623:13: note: expected âstruct usb_hub *â but argument is of type âstruct usb_device *â
So I'm not going to take this pull request, sorry.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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
