On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 10:02:48AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:16:24AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Alan Stern <st...@rowland.harvard.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Toggling port power currently leads to three unintended disconnect
> >> >> scenarios that are addressed by this rework of port power recovery and
> >> >> usb device resume:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1/ Superspeed devices downgrade to their hispeed connection: fix this by
> >> >> preventing superspeed poweroff until the peer port is suspended.
> >> >> This depends on the ability to identify peer ports (patches 1-4), and
> >> >> then patch 5 implements the policy.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2/ khubd prematurely disconnects ports that are in the process of
> >> >> being resumed or reset. khubd now ignores ports in the
> >> >> pm-runtime-suspended state (patch 9) and holds a lock to synchronize
> >> >> the port
> >> >> status changes of usb_port_{suspend|resume} (patch 11).
> >> >>
> >> >> 3/ Superspeed devices fail to reconnect: Seen during repeated toggles of
> >> >> the port power state. Fixed by forcing a full recovery cycle of the
> >> >> usb_device before allowing the next suspend / khubd run (patch 12).
> >> >> Also, for devices that live lock on reconnect the port runtime resume
> >> >> path now has the capability to force a reset-resume to be a
> >> >> warm-reset-resume (patch 13).
> >> >
> >> > I haven't gone through all this in any detail. But a couple of things
> >> > stand out immediately, matters of style.
> >> >
> >> > Although the USB stack still has plenty of old code with multiline
> >> > comments looking this this:
> >> >
> >> > /* blah blah blah
> >> > * blah blah blah
> >> > */
> >> >
> >> > the accepted style is that all new code should appear like this:
> >> >
> >> > /*
> >> > * blah blah blah
> >> > * blah blah blah
> >> > */
> >>
> >> Ah, the eternal debate. No worries.
> >>
> >> > Also, the style for indentation througout most of the USB stack is that
> >> > continuation lines are indented by two tab stops beyond the first line
> >> > of the statement. They are not aligned with opening parentheses of
> >> > function calls or anything like that.
> >>
> >> Unfortunate that what goes for net/, or drivers/md/ doesn't go for
> >> drivers/usb/... sounds like checkpatch needs subsystem specific style
> >> rules to avoid this thrash.
> >>
> >> If it's just the style I'll put those changes on a git branch and
> >> spare the list if you're ok doing a pull... otherwise I'll hold off
> >> until you have a chance to take a closer look.
> >
> > I don't do git pulls except from a very few number of people, so you
> > will have to make these into "real" patches eventually if you want them
> > to be accepted.
>
> Ok, that's the plan once Alan let's me know if v5 needs more than just
> the style changes. Until then the git tree is just a convenience for
> review.
git trees are a pain in the ass to review. You can't quote them easily
for actually giving review through email, and you just have to "trust"
that everything is ok when pulling them and running them yourself.
I don't recommend them at all for kernel patch review, sorry.
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
