[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1106291333440.2064-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Kirill Smelkov <kirr@....spb.ru>
cc: matt mooney <mfm@...eddisk.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] USB: EHCI: Move sysfs related bits into ehci-sysfs.c
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.
> 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?
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists