lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:40:47 +0800
From:   Jim Lin <jilin@...dia.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:     <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] usb: Add Clear_TT_Buffer support for XHCI

Thanks for review.

Abandon this series of patches.

And will send out another minimized patch later.

Jim


On 2019年04月26日 23:34, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Jim Lin wrote:
>
>> Jim Lin (6):
>>    usb: hub:Extend usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer parameter
>>    usb: isp1760:Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: fotg210:Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: ehci: Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: dwc2: Adjusted for usb_hub_clear_tt_buffer
>>    usb: xhci: Add Clear_TT_Buffer
>>
>>   drivers/usb/core/hub.c            |  5 +++--
>>   drivers/usb/dwc2/hcd_intr.c       |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/ehci-q.c         |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/fotg210-hcd.c    |  2 +-
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci-ring.c      | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci.c           |  7 +++++++
>>   drivers/usb/host/xhci.h           |  3 +++
>>   drivers/usb/isp1760/isp1760-hcd.c |  5 +++--
>>   include/linux/usb/hcd.h           |  2 +-
>>   9 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> This doesn't explain anything.  After reading the patches, I could see
> that patches 2-5 are needed in order to work with patch 1, but I don't
> know why patch 1 was needed in the first place.  It looks like patch 1
> forces callers to add an extra argument containing information that is
> already available, so why is the extra argument needed?
>
> In any case, this is the sort of the thing you should explain to people
> instead of forcing them to figure it out for themselves.
>
> Alan Stern
>
--nvpublic

Powered by blists - more mailing lists