[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201206011616.36284.oneukum@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:16:36 +0200
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, greg@...ah.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
thomas.braunstorfinger@...de-schwarz.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add new NRP power meter USB device driver
Am Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012, 11:21:40 schrieb Stefani Seibold:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:20 +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > > + if (arg) {
> > > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> > > > > + dev->out_running.wait,
> > > > > + list_empty(&dev->out_running.urb_list),
> > > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(arg));
> > > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > > + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + return wait_event_interruptible(
> > > > > + dev->out_running.wait,
> > > > > + list_empty(&dev->out_running.urb_list));
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + break;
> > > >
> > > > This is very ugly. If you need fsync(), then implement it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > fsync() did not meat the requirements, since i need in some case a
> > > timeout for the device. poll() will also not help, since it signals only
> > > that there is space to write.
> >
> > Well, then implement fsync() with interruptible sleep and use a timer
> > in user space.
> >
>
> But this will not solve the problem of older software which is still
> depending on this ioctl.
Yes. I guess it might be included in a depreated form. However
a sane alternative must be provided.
> > Yes, but this seems to be buggy:
> >
> > + ret = usb_submit_urb(urb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + usb_unanchor_urb(urb);
> > + urb_list_add_tail(&dev->read_lock, urb, &dev->in_avail);
> > + nrpz_err("Failed submitting read urb (error %d)", ret);
> > + }
> >
> > You have already transfered the data to user space. It seems to me that you
> > need to zero out the URB and need to handle the case of getting an URB
> > without data.
> >
>
> Okay, i understand what you mean. Zeroing out is not necessary since
> usb_submit_urb will set urb->status to -EINPROGRESS. This behavior is
> well documented.
>
Look more closely at the code:
int usb_submit_urb(struct urb *urb, gfp_t mem_flags)
{
int xfertype, max;
struct usb_device *dev;
struct usb_host_endpoint *ep;
int is_out;
if (!urb || urb->hcpriv || !urb->complete)
return -EINVAL;
dev = urb->dev;
if ((!dev) || (dev->state < USB_STATE_UNAUTHENTICATED))
return -ENODEV;
/* For now, get the endpoint from the pipe. Eventually drivers
* will be required to set urb->ep directly and we will eliminate
* urb->pipe.
*/
ep = usb_pipe_endpoint(dev, urb->pipe);
if (!ep)
return -ENOENT;
urb->ep = ep;
urb->status = -EINPROGRESS;
urb->actual_length = 0;
There are a few error conditions where this is not true.
> > There probably is no generic answer. But I presume a reset will
> > reinit the device and destroy anything you set up before, so I guess
> > the next read() or write() after a reset has to return an error code that
> > tells user space that it has to redo its setup.
> >
>
> Is it okay to kick out the whole ..._reset() thing, since i have no idea
> what it is good for.
That's an option. Users will get -ENODEV.
Regards
Oliver
--
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