[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210607071958.GN1955@kadam>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 10:19:58 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>
Cc: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] staging: rtl8188eu: remove RT_TRACE and DBG_88E
prints from usb_ops_linux.c
On Sat, Jun 05, 2021 at 06:58:55PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> @@ -464,14 +403,8 @@ u32 usb_read_port(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, struct recv_buf *precvbuf)
> precvbuf);/* context is precvbuf */
>
> err = usb_submit_urb(purb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> - if ((err) && (err != (-EPERM))) {
> - RT_TRACE(_module_hci_ops_os_c_, _drv_err_,
> - ("cannot submit rx in-token(err=0x%.8x), URB_STATUS =0x%.8x",
> - err, purb->status));
> - DBG_88E("cannot submit rx in-token(err = 0x%08x),urb_status = %d\n",
> - err, purb->status);
> + if ((err) && (err != (-EPERM)))
> ret = _FAIL;
Not related to your patch but why is -EPERM treated differently? It's
not immediately clear that -EPERM is even something that usb_submit_urb()
returns...
> - }
>
> return ret;
> }
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists