[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7574048.Em7ePkbmsJ@linux-5eaq.site>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:37:06 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mdharm-usb@...-eyed-alien.net, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: USB autosuspend vs. URB submission
On Thursday 10 January 2013 10:20:42 Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > In the long run it is probably a good idea to pass duplicated URBs to usbmon by
> > a special code path.
>
> I'd prefer to add extra information to the WARN_ONCE message. Even
> though it would require the extra effort of correlating the dmesg
> output with the usbmon output.
A stack_trace() I presume.
But what is the use of needing two logs?
> You know, it's possible that the URB really was not submitted before
> but instead the urb->hcpriv field got overwritten. Of course, that
> would also be a bug.
We could log a corrupted URB generically speaking.
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