From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386AB2FB2 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50B756054E; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:46:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1623682003; bh=+o9b6y5kWybkxYBzKA6EBU6w59vTl9WPx7qNYYNQuqs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=2JTsY/mpVYRSuI8bgbBTK2QoLAz8VnT2unhc+OM7HqRwhTjR+NOZ7SdHkf16txPwt vI5MPtv3CXZqam1quJrb2bnG9Rw37z/ntye/BtpN0J+uEdskBox5fP3SU3pbdKUuYj X03z2/LJ1YQxEliUKkQPNPp7xxt0LZ9Mce6ZZGRs= Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:46:41 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Martin Kaiser Cc: Larry Finger , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] staging: rtl8188eu: fix usb_submit_urb error handling Message-ID: References: <20210612180019.20387-1-martin@kaiser.cx> <20210612180019.20387-2-martin@kaiser.cx> X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210612180019.20387-2-martin@kaiser.cx> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 08:00:15PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote: > -EPERM should be handled like any other error. Why? This is not "any other error" for the usb core, right? > > Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser > --- > drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c > index ec07b2017fb7..0ceb05f3884f 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/os_dep/usb_ops_linux.c > @@ -366,7 +366,6 @@ u32 usb_read_port(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr, struct recv_buf *precvbuf) > struct usb_device *pusbd = pdvobj->pusbdev; > int err; > unsigned int pipe; > - u32 ret = _SUCCESS; > > if (adapter->bDriverStopped || adapter->bSurpriseRemoved || > adapter->pwrctrlpriv.pnp_bstop_trx) { > @@ -403,10 +402,10 @@ 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))) > - ret = _FAIL; if -EPERM returns from this function, someone set the "reject" bit on the urb. Can this driver do that? Where did this check originally come from, as it feels like this was added for a good reason. If this patch is "correct", I need a better changelog text explaining why it is so :) thanks, greg k-h