Am Freitag 14 Oktober 2011, 06:51:13 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:53:08AM +0200, Fabian Godehardt wrote:
> > From: Christian Kellermann <ck@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > We check the reset_printer flag in the printer driver's
> > wait queues to sense the reset propagation.
> >
> > Blocking read/write calls will fail with EBUSY, whereas
> > poll/select/epoll calls will return with POLLHUP as revent value.
> > ---
>
> You did read Documentation/SubmittingPatches, right? I didn't think so,
> please go do so now, it was written for a reason, we don't just like
> writing documentation that no one ends up reading. That would be
> pointless and we aren't that foolish...
Arrg... signed-off missing. Also on the other patch.
>
> > drivers/usb/gadget/printer.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/printer.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/printer.c
> > index 6c37fc5..fbdadd3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/printer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/printer.c
> > @@ -608,7 +608,8 @@ printer_read(struct file *fd, char __user *buf,
> > size_t len, loff_t *ptr)
> >
> > /* Sleep until data is available */
> > wait_event_interruptible(dev->rx_wait,
> >
> > - (likely(!list_empty(&dev->rx_buffers))));
> > + ((likely(!list_empty(&dev->rx_buffers))
> > + || dev->reset_printer)));
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->lock, flags);
> >
> > }
> >
> > @@ -720,7 +721,8 @@ printer_write(struct file *fd, const char __user
> > *buf, size_t len, loff_t *ptr)
> >
> > /* Sleep until a write buffer is available */
> > wait_event_interruptible(dev->tx_wait,
> >
> > - (likely(!list_empty(&dev->tx_reqs))));
> > + (likely(!list_empty(&dev->tx_reqs))
> > + || dev->reset_printer));
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->lock, flags);
> >
> > }
> >
> > @@ -805,12 +807,14 @@ printer_fsync(struct file *fd, loff_t start, loff_t
> > end, int datasync)
> >
> > mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->lock, flags);
> > tx_list_empty = (likely(list_empty(&dev->tx_reqs)));
> >
> > + dev->reset_printer = 0;
> >
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->lock, flags);
> >
> > if (!tx_list_empty) {
> >
> > /* Sleep until all data has been sent */
> > wait_event_interruptible(dev->tx_flush_wait,
> >
> > - (likely(list_empty(&dev->tx_reqs_active))));
> > + (likely(list_empty(&dev->tx_reqs_active)
> > + || dev->reset_printer)));
> >
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> >
> > @@ -841,6 +845,9 @@ printer_poll(struct file *fd, poll_table *wait)
> >
> > likely(!list_empty(&dev->rx_buffers)))
> >
> > status |= POLLIN | POLLRDNORM;
> >
> > + if (dev->reset_printer)
> > + status = POLLHUP;
>
> Shouldn't you be OR-ing this together and not just overwriting what you
> might just have set previously?
Yes, you are right. I'll send both patches agian.
> greg k-h
Regards,
Fabian
--
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
