On Di, 2018-06-12 at 21:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > Yes, the atomic case should be rare. It will only happen on errors, and > > IIUC that's only to work around issues caused by reporting errors back > > to userspace without actually wanting to err out anyway. > > Yup. The missing part is if this was done to workaround a specific > userland application or most/all of them.
Yes, If possible we should not regress in that regard. > > I believe it would be better to decide one an error policy and stick to > > that. Then you could just simplify away that whole mess, by either > > ignoring the error and continue or bailing out and die. > > "Bailing out and die" would be a revert of commit c1da59dad0eb > ("cdc-wdm: Clear read pipeline in case of error")? > And ignoring the error would be "not updating rerr" in > wdm_in_callback(). > I don't care either way. I can do whatever works for you/users best. It seems to me that the core of the problem is handling an error in irq context potentially. How about shifting it to a work queue? Regards Oliver -- 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