On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Yuping Luo wrote:
> I send the whole fixed patch for your review, if desirable , Barry
> will send one formal patch for push
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c
> @@ -2683,6 +2704,14 @@ static int get_next_command(struct fsg_dev *fsg)
> bh->state = BUF_STATE_EMPTY;
>
> } else { // USB_PR_CB or USB_PR_CBI
> + struct usb_request *req;
> + struct fsg_bulk_cb_wrap *cbw;
> +
> + /* update lun */
> + bh = fsg->next_buffhd_to_fill;
> + req = bh->outreq;
> + cbw = req->buf;
> + fsg->lun = cbw->Lun;
>
> /* Wait for the next command to arrive */
> while (fsg->cbbuf_cmnd_size == 0) {
This part is wrong. The new code has to be added at the end of the
block, not the beginning -- at the beginning the new command may not
even have been received yet. Also, the CB and CBI transports don't use
CBWs.
What you have to add is (after the spin_unlock_irq):
fsg->lun = fsg->cmnd[1] >> 5;
Just like the declaration in check_command(). In fact, with this
addition you can remove the line in check_command() that says:
fsg->lun = lun; // Use LUN from the command
You really should test new code before submitting patches. Proper
testing would have revealed these errors.
Alan Stern
--
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
