On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 03:26:25PM +0100, Gerhard Roth wrote: > > I don't want to fight for this diff, if you think that it's too naive to > > expect proper reset from unresponsive device - that's fine, I'm ready to > > drop the diff, but who knows how those devices are engineered and trade > > of of not being able to run other watchdogs comparing to possible > > network recovery does look reasonable to me. > > > > I don't blame the idea of revitializing urndis_watchdog(). But that > code has been disabled for more than 10 years. And its quite different > for what all the other watchdog routines of USB network interface > drivers do. Maybe the code needs rethinking.
I was looking on other implementations and didn't find any signs of the same protocol logic - with keepalives and reset messages, so this flow is pretty unique for urndis driver, and I currently don't understand how to re-do it to avoid waiting on timeout. It already looks pretty straightforward and complete.
