Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180125163146.GD6590@uda0271908>
References: <CAJGZr0JNgYccDdsPLPWGyY3ASnN4PBxfJuhxeEEWk87T0qh2fg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160427191356.GA16821@uda0271908> <20160427212823.GA14645@uda0271908>
 <CAJGZr0JwefevBRxbG_k5jPqf8Bi9ndMMieTcAKfkgCRGcbfjrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160428143714.GA7222@uda0271908> <CAGm1_ksaa8P1fs03-DSsjvVQu_=cg4yqw7xumb9Gbm+t19O01w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160503134813.GA690@uda0271908> <CAGm1_kvLh-+kJVdtv+7i_1nVsPTQ67uE_5ZizRRfK2iEoWcj+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180125154508.GB6590@uda0271908> <CAJGZr0+8FRhbMEsKke=DoCAQ7-7gqDKCNJZ+oE==aovqm1kHBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180125163146.GD6590@uda0271908>
From:   Maxim Uvarov <muvarov@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:24:54 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJGZr0LcMpdNea+VMZs-0Ln+2ScQK+4oWB95qQFt4uF9V=f9ww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] musb_host: fix lockup on rxcsr_h_error
To:     Bin Liu <b-liu@ti.com>, Maxim Uvarov <muvarov@gmail.com>,
        Yegor Yefremov <yegorslists@googlemail.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-usb <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com,
        Tomas Paukrt <tomas.paukrt@advantech-bb.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Bin,

I looked to my local git and code does not have this latest line "goto
finish".  It was tested without it and everything worked. Right now I
can not get access to that hardware to check with and without. But
only can confirm that without "goto finish" function works with bunch
of drivers (usb ethernet, hids, hdd).

Best regards,
Maxim.

2018-01-25 19:31 GMT+03:00 Bin Liu <b-liu@ti.com>:
> Maxim,
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 07:24:02PM +0300, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
>> [1] says that issue is with back ported driver to 3.12.10. Can the
>> latest kernel be tested on the same hw?
>
> Agreed that it should be tested with the latest kernel. But my concern
> now is if stopping scheduling urbs on errors is a right thing to do,
> that is why I asked if you can re-test your usecase with reverting the
> commit. I am unable to reproduce the original issue you had.
>
> Thanks,
> -Bin.


-- 
Best regards,
Maxim Uvarov