Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752156AbZG2OEG (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752021AbZG2OEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:05 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60927 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751978AbZG2OEE (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:04:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:03:08 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Alan Stern Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [patch 14/71] USB: EHCI: use the new clear_tt_buffer interface Message-ID: <20090729140308.GA15088@suse.de> References: <20090728234153.376866725@mini.kroah.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1581 Lines: 40 On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:56:31AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > 2.6.30-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Alan Stern > > > > commit 914b701280a76f96890ad63eb0fa99bf204b961c upstream. > > > > This patch (as1256) changes ehci-hcd and all the other drivers in the > > EHCI family to make use of the new clear_tt_buffer callbacks. When a > > Clear-TT-Buffer request is in progress for a QH, the QH is not allowed > > to be linked into the async schedule until the request is finished. > > At that time, if there are any URBs queued for the QH, it is linked > > into the async schedule. > > Greg, can we hold off on applying this patch to the stable tree? > > It turns out that this change causes a WARN_ON to trigger in some > circumstances, and the proposed patch to fix _that_ hasn't yet been > submitted to the mainline because a few people have reported that it > leaks DMA pool memory. So far there hasn't been much progress in > tracking this down. Sure, I'll drop it. Should I also drop the patch before this one as well, which was there only because this patch needed it? Let me know when/if you ever want it added to the -stable trees in the future. thanks, greg k-h -- 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/