[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201014162209.GD712494@rowland.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:22:09 -0400
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Winischhofer <thomas@...ischhofer.net>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
Valentina Manea <valentina.manea.m@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Duncan Sands <duncan.sands@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/12] usb: gadget: udc: Remove in_interrupt()/in_irq()
from comments
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
>
> The usage of in_irq()/in_interrupt() in drivers is phased out for various
> reasons.
>
> The context description for usb_gadget_giveback_request() is misleading as
> in_interupt() means: hard interrupt or soft interrupt or bottom half
> disabled regions. But it's also invoked from task context when endpoints
> are torn down. Remove it as it's more confusing than helpful.
>
> Replace also the in_irq() comment with plain text.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
>
> ---
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c
> @@ -1754,8 +1754,9 @@ static int handle_control_request(struct
> return ret_val;
> }
>
> -/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to
> - * both drivers except the callbacks aren't in_irq().
> +/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to both
> + * drivers except that the callbacks are invoked from soft interrupt
> + * context.
> */
You might as well fix the formatting of the multiline comment while
you're changing its content.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists