On Wednesday 04 February 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> @@ -2141,13 +2142,22 @@ musb_h_disable(struct usb_hcd *hcd, stru
>
> /* cleanup */
> musb_cleanup_urb(urb, qh, urb->pipe & USB_DIR_IN);
> - } else
> - urb = NULL;
> -
> - /* then just nuke all the others */
> - list_for_each_entry_safe_from(urb, tmp, &hep->urb_list, urb_list)
> - musb_giveback(qh, urb, -ESHUTDOWN);
>
> + /* Then just nuke all the others */
> + while (!list_empty(&hep->urb_list)) {
> + urb = next_urb(qh);
> + urb->status = -ESHUTDOWN;
> + musb_advance_schedule(musb, urb, qh->hw_ep, is_in);
> + }
> + } else {
> + while (!list_empty(&hep->urb_list))
> + __musb_giveback(musb, next_urb(qh), -ESHUTDOWN);
Why does this have two different code paths for the
"unlink everything that the hardware doesn't have its
mittens on" branch?
It certainly *looks* goofy this way, and if it's not
buggy today then it'll probably grow some in the future.
Could you update this to settle on a single while()
loop? I'd suggest the "else" branch as being simpler.
Then this patch should be suitable for 2.6.29-rc, as
a fix for an infrequent oops.
- Dave
> +
> + hep->hcpriv = NULL;
> + list_del(&qh->ring);
> + kfree(qh);
> + }
> +exit:
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&musb->lock, flags);
> }
>
>
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
