From: Oliver Neukum (oneu...@suse.com) Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:24:07 +0200
> Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2017, 20:06 +0100 schrieb Jim Baxter: >> From: David S. Miller (da...@davemloft.net) >> Sent: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:26:25 -0400 >>> >>> From: Oliver Neukum <oneu...@suse.com> >>> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:42:48 +0200 >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We could use a counter. After the first failure, do it once, after the >>>> second twice and so on. And reset the counter as a higher order >>>> allocation works. (just bound it somewhere) >>> >>> So an exponential backoff, that might work. >>> >> >> As an idea I have created this patch as an addition to the original patch >> in this series. >> >> Would this be acceptable? >> >> At the moment I have capped the value at 10, does anyone think it needs to >> be much higher then that? > > Hi, > > I am working through mail backlog. If I may ask, has this patch proposal > had a result or does something need to be done still? > > Regards > Oliver > Hi, I have not received any response to my additional patch yet. Do you think I should submit it as a second RFC patchset? Regards, Jim -- 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
