[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxt7zWW+-EkwCbAWCb9wkgVswYJNAz86bc_QRcv1pBHZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:43:26 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cdc_ncm: do not call usbnet_link_change from cdc_ncm_bind
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> wrote:
> usbnet_link_change will call schedule_work and should be
> avoided if bind is failing. Otherwise we will end up with
> scheduled work referring to a netdev which has gone away.
>
> Instead of making the call conditional, we can just defer
> it to usbnet_probe, using the driver_info flag made for
> this purpose.
So looking at this, I wonder...
Why is that FLAG_LINK_INTR thing not just always used?
The _only_ thing that FLAG_LINK_INTR does is to cause
usbnet_link_change(dev, 0, 0);
to be called after network device attach. That doesn't seem to be controversial.
Looking at some examples, we have ax88179_178a.c that doesn't set the
flag, but instead does that usbnet_link_change() call at the end of
ax88179_bind().
There are a few drivers that seem to never call that
usbnet_link_change() at all, and don't have that FLAG_LINK_INTR flag.
Would they break?
Stupid grep:
git grep -lw FLAG_ETHER |
xargs grep -L FLAG_LINK_INTR |
xargs grep -L usbnet_link_change |
sed 's:drivers/net/usb/::'
gives
cdc_eem.c
ch9200.c
cx82310_eth.c
int51x1.c
rndis_host.c
so maybe that FLAG_LINK_INTR si required.
Why is it called "FLAG_LINK_INTR" anyway? There doesn't seem to be
anything "INTR" about it.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists