Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
cc: david-b@pacbell.net, <linux-usb-users@lists.sourceforge.net>,
       <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [Linux-usb-users] OHCI root_port_reset() deadly loop...
In-Reply-To: <20071017.160336.95505053.davem@davemloft.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0710181027220.4434-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1371
Lines: 40

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:51:57 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> > > +			break;
> > > +	}
> > > +	if (limit_1 < 0) {
> > > +		ohci_warn(ohci, "Root port outer-loop reset timeout, "
> > > +			  "now[%04x] reset_done[%04x]\n",
> > > +			  now, reset_done);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > What reason is there for having two warning messages?  One ought to be 
> > enough.
> 
> In my patch it was possible for the inner loop one to succeed, but the
> outer one to not do so.
> 
> In your's this is not the case so I guess it's OK.
> 
> I wonder if it's so wise trying to do two things at once.  Here we are
> adding the loop timeouts, and also changing to using jiffies based
> timeouts rather than a chip timer register based one.
> 
> I preferred my patches because it solved one single problem, the lack
> of loop limits.  The timeout mechanism could have been changed in
> another followon patch.

At this point I'd be perfectly happy to sit back and let David B.
choose, among all the possibilities that have been posted, the one he
thinks is best.

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/