On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Joachim Nilsson wrote:
> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > [..]
> > down (&usblp->sem);
> > [..]
> > Looks like (!usblp->wcomplete) was false, and (!usblp->present) was false,
> > and (usblp->writeurb->status != 0), so it just looped in this loop
> > forever, ignoring any signals.
> > [..]
> > Anyway. looks like some bug in the mentioned code? It's clear that
> > busy-loop is possible there. Maybe at least it should check for signals
> > after return from schedule()?
>
> OK, here's a shot in the dark...
>
> What if you, at least, replace the down() above with:
>
> if (down_interruptible (&usblp->sem))
> return -ERESTARTSYS;
>
> Now you should be able to abort the cat.
>
> However, the fact that usblp_check_status() ignores -ENODEV and returns
> 0 (OK) to usblp_write() is not really a hit. Imho usblp_write() should
> get -ENODEV, release usblp->sem, drop everything and let the driver
> clean up.
Does this patch solve the problem?
Alan Stern
Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
===== drivers/usb/class/usblp.c 1.120 vs edited =====
--- 1.120/drivers/usb/class/usblp.c 2005-03-11 02:15:11 -05:00
+++ edited/drivers/usb/class/usblp.c 2005-03-23 10:55:12 -05:00
@@ -655,7 +655,7 @@
}
down (&usblp->sem);
- if (!usblp->present) {
+ if (!usblp->present || usblp->writeurb->status == -ENODEV) {
up (&usblp->sem);
return -ENODEV;
}
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest
Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones
for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
