Re: Possible OHCI driver bug ?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Anantha Subramanyam wrote:

> > > Since the tick_before condition always returns true, this 
> > 'ed' is never
> > > removed for processing and hence the timeout. For trying 
> > out the above
> > > condition was changed to :
> > >             if (tick == ed->tick)) {    
> > > skip_ed:
> > >                 last = &ed->ed_next;
> > >                 continue;
> > >             }
> > 
> > No, don't do that!  You are replacing something wrong with something 
> > else even more wrong.
> > 
> Just curious about why this would be wrong. Thought the objective of
> this test was to just ensure that the tick value at this interrupt was
> later than ed->tick. Considering that tick is always increasing
> sequentially wouldn't this test suffice.

It would if ed->tick were set correctly to begin with.  You also need
to change start_ed_unlink() from:

	ed->tick = ohci_frame_no(ohci) + 1;

to:

	ed->tick = ohci_frame_no(ohci);

However I agree in general that eliminating tick_before() entirely 
would be a good idea.

Alan Stern


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel