Re: bug in handling of highspeed usb HID devices

From: Christian Krause (chkr_at_plauener.de)
Date: 10/12/05

  • Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [discuss] [Patch 1/2] x86, x86_64: Intel HT, Multi core detection fixes" 
    To: kernel-stuff@comcast.net
Date:	Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:42:17 +0200

    Hi,

    On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:10:53 +0000, kernel-stuff wrote:
    >> Re-calculation in usb_fill_int_urb makes more sense, because it is the
    >> most general approach. So it would make sense to remove it from
    >> hid-core.c.
    >>

    > Patch looks correct to me from a purely logical perspective. (IOW I
    > read that file first time :)

    > But since interval is passed as a parameter to the usb_fill_int_urb()
    > function, I think it is more natural to remove the recalculation from
    > usb_fill_int_urb() - If caller passes a parameter and has enough info
    > to determine its value, it makes sense for the caller to pass in the
    > right value and the callee to just take it as it is.

    Yes, but in this case we have to check all callers of usb_fill_int_urb
    to do the recalculation. E.g. in input/usbmouse.c
    endpoint->bInterval is used directly as parameter to usb_fill_int_urb.

    To avoid breaking things (my suggested patch has no impact on any other
    usb driver) and to solve the problem shortly, I suggest to
    use my patch and do some kind of refactoring later (You are right,
    for a clean interface the interval parameter should have the same
    meaning independend of the speed).

    Best regards,
    Christian

    -
    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/

  • Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [discuss] [Patch 1/2] x86, x86_64: Intel HT, Multi core detection fixes"

    Relevant Pages