On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:35:04PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>
> > > Also, when decreasing the schedule limit, do you think it is really
> > > necessary to check that the current allocation doesn't exceed the new
> > > limit? I think it would be sufficient to apply the new limit just to
> > > new bandwidth allocation requests. After all, this API is meant for
> > > experts only.
> >
> > I think yes, it is needed. E.g. because there is this check in
> > periodic_usecs():
> >
> > #ifdef DEBUG
> > if (usecs > ehci->uframe_periodic_max)
> > ehci_err (ehci, "uframe %d sched overrun: %d usecs\n",
> > frame * 8 + uframe, usecs);
> > #endif
> > return usecs;
> > }
> >
> > and periodic_usecs() is called in e.g. this chain:
> >
> > itd_submit
> > iso_stream_schedule
> > itd_slot_ok
> > periodic_usecs
> >
> > and others.
>
> That won't matter unless DEBUG is defined.
Yes, but still it would be good to always keep the invariant
allocated <= uframe_periodic_max
and that debug is there to catch when this breaks.
> > I'd leave this check as is - to me it would be useful in debug mode to
> > verify that we've not overallocated a period.
> >
> > Also, even if this knob would be useful only to experts, it would be
> > better to put feedback onto the knob so that people could know whether
> > thir request could be served or not.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Can you make that check conditional on DEBUG being set?
Yes I can, but it seems to me we are starting to complicate the code.
What's the problem with returning error on setting uframe_periodic_max <
already allocated usb bandwith?
Kirill
P.S.
The checking is not a priority for me here, so if you think it's better not
to check or do it under #ifdef - let's do it. Though of course we all
have our preferences :)
--
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
