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
References: <20190115161354.6806-1-root@livid.pp.ru> <C672AA6DAAC36042A98BAD0B0B25BDA94CB280EC@BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com>
 <CA+A=rXGckxCsEPAG_DczMgLwS2+K3SXFUnHnXQrOOr+9WOWj9w@mail.gmail.com> <C672AA6DAAC36042A98BAD0B0B25BDA94CB2885A@BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <C672AA6DAAC36042A98BAD0B0B25BDA94CB2885A@BGSMSX104.gar.corp.intel.com>
From:   Nikolay Yakimov <root@livid.pp.ru>
Date:   Wed, 6 Feb 2019 15:01:45 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+A=rXE_4q1ioEFTD2iXcS3PLvErXVepZ+uQgj9UW6vKfozxqw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: Fix configuration selection issues introduced in v4.20.0
To:     "Gopal, Saranya" <saranya.gopal@intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hey there.

Sorry to nag, but it seems we came to the conclusion that there's
indeed a problem with the current code, and then collectively decided
that we're done. Can I do something to expedite this? Are there any
issues with my proposed patch? If there are, what can I do to fix
those? Alternatively, perhaps it would be easier/faster if a bona fide
kernel developer could fix problems described in this thread (well,
actually, I believe we're down to one somewhat pressing problem, which
could be fixed just by moving some code around)


On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 06:53, Gopal, Saranya <saranya.gopal@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > The result is this:
> > Before f13912d3f014a, if an RNDIS device has non-vendor-specific
> > configurations after the first one, that one would be selected.
> > After ff2a8c532c14, the first configuration would always be selected
> > for RNDIS devices. Besides, there are several redundant checks in this
> > case, which is, if nothing else, confusing.
> >
> > Hopefully I've explained my point clearly enough.
>
> Agreed. Thanks for pointing it out. I somehow missed this :(
>
> Thanks,
> Saranya