From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E5FC433DF for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36785206C3 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727064AbgHJPAc (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:00:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38756 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726787AbgHJPAb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:00:31 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974A1AE71; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1597070349.2515.6.camel@suse.com> Subject: Re: [RFC]mooring API From: Oliver Neukum To: Eli Billauer Cc: Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:39:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5F2C2C74.8000104@gmail.com> References: <1596722827.2488.8.camel@suse.com> <5F2C2C74.8000104@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2020, 19:14 +0300 schrieb Eli Billauer: > Hello, > > I feel I got more credit that I deserve. Hans de Goede discovered this > issue and solved a specific problem that was related to the race back in > 6ec4147. I was just lucky (or unlucky) enough to get a kernel panic on > my machine due to another problem, for which I submitted a patch. > > To me the anchor API is great. If there is unclearances about its API, I > suppose docs would help. The fact that the URB is unanchored prior to > calling the completer is intuitive, so there's a clear benefit in that. But is it necessary? DO you ever move URBs between anchors? > This requires some ungraceful code where almost nobody's looking, but if > that makes the common programmer's life easier, I think it's a good deal. It would be, if the deal is necessary. In hindsight it still looks to me like completion should unanchor an URB. Regards Oliver