From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC]extension of the anchor API
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:23:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72d092726448607af2fd453c48be5b0ba69e617a.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210414145608.GB1493067@rowland.harvard.edu>
Am Mittwoch, den 14.04.2021, 10:56 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:12:01AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 12.04.2021, 11:06 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:58:16AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > That presumes that the URBs will finish in order. I don't think such
> > > > an assumption can be made.
> > >
> > > I don't understand -- I can't detect any such presumption.
> >
> > OK, this shows that I am bad at explaining.
> > > As far as I can tell, the only reason for maintaining the URBs in any
> > > particular order on the anchor list is so that usb_kill_anchored_urbs
> > > and usb_poison_anchored_urbs can kill them in reverse order of
> > > submission. THat's why the current code moves completed URBs to the end
> > > of the list.
> >
> > No longer strictly true, as the API has a call to submit everything
> > on an anchor, but I think it boils down to the same thing.
> >
> > > If you keep a pointer to the most recently submitted URB, killing them
> > > easy enough to do. Start with that URB, then go backward through the
> > > list (wrapping to the end when you reach the beginning of the list).
> >
> > Yes, but that supposes that the next on the list has not been
> > resubmitted _before_ the one after it.
> >
> > If you do not keep the list ordered, but in the initial order,
> > we can have the situation that A (happens most recently submitted)
> > is followed by B and C, but C was submitted before B.
>
> I think the only reasonable alternative is to move an URB to the end of
> the list when it is submitted, rather than when it completes. Have you
> considered doing it that way?
No, that did not occur to me. Back to the drawing board.
Still I have to put it somewhere when I anchor an URB. Head or tail?
> The real problem with usb_submit_anchored_urbs is that the core can't
> know in what order the caller wants the URBs to be submitted. If the
I think the reasonable assumption is that they need to be submitted
in the order they were anchored.
> In the kerneldoc you can explain that if the anchor has not been used
> since its URBs were added then the URBs will be submitted in the order
> they were added to the anchor, but otherwise they will be submitted in
> an unspecified order, which may not be suitable.
Yes.
> > > The order in which the URBs complete doesn't matter, because trying to
> > > unlink a completed URB won't cause any harm.
> >
> > As long as it stays completed.
>
> Rather, as long as they complete in order of submission.
>
> > > The only assumption here
> > > is that URBs get submitted in the list's order (possibly circularly) --
> > > this should always be true.
> >
> > I am afraid we cannot guarantee that. It might intuitively seem so,
> > but nothing guarantees that all URBs are going to the same endpoint.
>
> I hadn't thought of that. Do anchors get used that way anywhere?
I haven't found an example, but I thought it could not be ruled out.
So you think that that case should be discouraged in documentation
and henceforth ignored?
So we do agree that we need the following:
a - submit in the order you
anchored
b - kill or poison in the reverse order
c - unpoison does not really matter but better do it in the submit
order?
Does that mean that the list needs to be kept ordered by sequence
of submission? I think so.
Regards
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-15 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-25 11:03 [RFC]extension of the anchor API Oliver Neukum
2021-03-25 15:06 ` Alan Stern
2021-03-25 16:04 ` Oliver Neukum
2021-03-25 18:38 ` Alan Stern
2021-04-08 9:23 ` Oliver Neukum
2021-04-08 15:07 ` Alan Stern
2021-04-12 9:58 ` Oliver Neukum
2021-04-12 15:06 ` Alan Stern
2021-04-14 8:12 ` Oliver Neukum
2021-04-14 14:56 ` Alan Stern
2021-04-15 11:23 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
2021-04-15 15:18 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=72d092726448607af2fd453c48be5b0ba69e617a.camel@suse.com \
--to=oneukum@suse.com \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).