* Matthew Wilcox | 2011-12-16 15:31:46 [-0500]: >On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior | 2011-12-16 15:47:24 [+0100]: >> >> >>If you want to take a stab at redoing your patch #2 to use only one >> >>status URB for USB 2.0 devices, I would appreciate it. Then I can build >> >>the abort/reset synchronization on top of it. >> >Okay. >> >> Just once things started to become easy.... So while I tried to have >> only one status urb which I always re-submit (as Matthew/ You suggested) >> I run into the problem that I don't have struct scsi_device yet. So I >> just created a device with two luns to see if this struct happens always >> to be same. Ofcourse it is not. > >Can you not send one status URB per LUN (instead of one per command)? The thing is by the time a status URB completes I have only the *TAG* number from the device which tells to which command it belongs. Sending one status per LUN does not help because once a status URB with TAG 1 arrived I have no idea to which device/LUN it does belong. ->context does not help here at all. Sebastian -- 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
