[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1411141008020.1043-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 10:17:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
cc: johan@...nel.org, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sameer Nanda <snanda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: usbhid: get/put around clearing needs_remote_wakeup
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Benson Leung wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > Wait a minute -- in your previous email you said this approach didn't
> > work. So does it work or doesn't it?
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The approach *does* work.
>
> That was actually my original idea to fix the problem, but I saw other
> places in the kernel where it was done with a get/put.
The reason for the get/put is to force a call to autosuspend_check().
But in this case, if killing the interrupt URB causes
autosuspend_check() to run then the get/put isn't needed.
On the other hand, I don't see why killing the interrupt URB would
cause autosuspend_check() to run. Can you explain that?
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