From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752605Ab0IOKh1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:37:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:53718 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751615Ab0IOKh0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Sep 2010 06:37:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Lljue7tk8PzxhbPYXL7anmWW28Y9VhU/gR0Ks41m4VaCKBaqWwgoo++pJ26VgQPWQK K47hbaiK1HfhX6748Yj01pJhdbsttFLF7rJQeJlFBjCKO0CuutoAakkf4lEyGHhRdBBM OL7UI1KNLx1FEWlosPIfhbYXchurzpz3axvSo= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4C909F99.9050300@mvista.com> References: <20100914065604.GD2601@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4C8F527E.40408@ru.mvista.com> <20100914105402.GD7554@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4C8FB60D.1080906@ru.mvista.com> <20100915065345.GC3393@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4C909961.10001@ru.mvista.com> <20100915100553.GJ3393@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4C909B2E.3000909@ru.mvista.com> <4C909D87.2090901@ru.mvista.com> <20100915102256.GK3393@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4C909F99.9050300@mvista.com> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:37:24 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESEND/PATCH 5/6] USB: musb-gadget: complete request only if data is transfered over From: Ming Lei To: Sergei Shtylyov Cc: balbi@ti.com, "greg@kroah.com" , "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , David Brownell , "Gadiyar, Anand" , Mike Frysinger Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2010/9/15 Sergei Shtylyov : > On 15.09.2010 14:22, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >>> I don't see why we should fix only this problem, while it's obvious tha >>> the fix is incomplete and leaves the other problem exposed. Please recast >>> the >>> patch. > >> IMO, the ZLP fix is *another* fix and as such subject to a different >> patch. > >   IMHO, this fix as it is now is quite stupid. It's clear that the check is > misplaced and will be removed once the ZLP fix is done. So why not do it > once and for all? Is it so hard to do? FWIW, I NAK this patch as it is now. Maybe we should open a new thread to discuss the ZLP fix, I'll do it later. -- Lei Ming