From: "Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br>
To: Frank Gevaerts <frank.gevaerts@fks.be>
Cc: Frank Gevaerts <frank.gevaerts@fks.be>,
Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@suse.de,
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: usb-serial ipaq kernel problem
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:33:30 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060529193330.3c51f3ba@home.brethil> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060529204724.GA22250@fks.be>
On Mon, 29 May 2006 22:47:24 +0200
Frank Gevaerts <frank.gevaerts@fks.be> wrote:
| On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:24:10PM -0300, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote:
| > On Mon, 29 May 2006 21:43:35 +0200
| > Frank Gevaerts <frank.gevaerts@fks.be> wrote:
| >
| > | On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 02:11:10PM -0300, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Frank, could you try this one please?
| > | >
| > | > I have no sure whether this makes sense, but every USB-Serial driver
| > | > I know exits in the write URB callback if the URB got an error.
| > |
| > | It looks sane to me at least.
| > | The machine is now running with this patch (and my ipaq_open patch, see
| > | http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0605.2/1901.html).
| >
| > Hmmm. Then does the workqueue problem began to happen _after_ you applied
| > your patch?
|
| No. I saw it a few times before that as well. Here is the oldest one I found (using 2.6.15)
Okay.
| > Are you sure your patch is the right thing to do? Does it look reasonable
| > to submit that urb 1000 times that way?
|
| It only submits it once, just after the control message has succeeded.
Oh, that's right. I didn't see the return statement.
| The loop is needed because sometimes the ipaq takes a very long time
| (more than a minute) before it starts accepting the control message.
Ok.
| > At first, it seems something else.
| >
| > Couldn't you run your test-case in a kernel previous to the TTY layer
| > buffering revamp change?
|
| We first used 2.6.15. We got different types of error : a panic in
| ipaq_read_bulk_callback(), the bug I mentionned in
| http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0605.2/1770.html and the
| current problem. We first tried upgrading to 2.6.16, which did not help.
|
| The panic was caused by the read urb being submitten in ipaq_open,
| regardless of success, and never killed in case of failure. What my
| patch basically does is to submit the urb only after succesfully sending
| the control message, and adding a sleep between tries. As long as this
| patch is not applied, we hardly get any other error because the kernel
| panics as soon as an ipaq reboots.
I see.
Did you try to just kill the read urb in the ipaq_open's error path?
--
Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-29 22:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-26 18:22 Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-26 20:34 ` Pete Zaitcev
2006-05-26 21:12 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-27 11:41 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-29 15:01 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-29 16:25 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-29 17:11 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-29 19:43 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-29 20:24 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-29 20:47 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-29 22:33 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino [this message]
2006-05-30 8:21 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 14:38 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-30 14:53 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-30 15:09 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 17:48 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 18:33 ` Pete Zaitcev
2006-05-30 19:04 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 20:53 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-31 21:38 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-31 21:55 ` Greg KH
2006-05-31 22:42 ` [PATCH] ipaq.c bugfixes Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-31 22:46 ` Greg KH
2006-06-01 19:18 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-14 11:58 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-14 12:05 ` [PATCH] ipaq.c connection open timing parameters Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-14 14:21 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-14 13:58 ` [PATCH] ipaq.c bugfixes Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-06-14 14:18 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-01 19:16 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-06-02 12:59 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-06-02 13:10 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 20:52 ` usb-serial ipaq kernel problem Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-30 21:36 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-31 21:10 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
2006-05-31 21:23 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 15:06 ` Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-30 15:56 ` Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-05-22 14:30 Frank Gevaerts
2006-05-22 21:44 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060529193330.3c51f3ba@home.brethil \
--to=lcapitulino@mandriva.com.br \
--cc=frank.gevaerts@fks.be \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=zaitcev@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®