Re: USB serial regression 2.6.31.1 -> 2.6.31.2 [PATCH]

[Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@one-eyed-alien.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1580 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:58:40AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > 
> > Alan, what do you think ? I definitely don't like Ben E's most recent
> > patch with a quirk for all devices, it's simply a lot more code for
> > something that will come back and bite again when somebody does the
> > same mistake again. I'd rather have the request sense code be more
> > robust. But this patch is fine, as was my previous one.
> 
> I agree that it seems silly to have a flag _for_ SANE_SENSE and another 
> flag _against_ SANE_SENSE.  Retrying seems easier and more robust.

Dualing flags, where one is auto-set and the other quirked, is almost
guaranteed to get us into a maintance nightmare.

> > So it boils down on clearing SANE_SENSE vs. not clearing it. If we
> > clear it, we probably want to keep it cleared (via an INSANE_SENSE
> > flag ?). But on the other hand, I don't think that always going
> > for a retry when a SANE_SENSE fails is going to hurt and sounds
> > like the robust thing to do, so I don't mind that simple patch
> > from Ben. So up to you :-)
> 
> I agree; it won't hurt much and only if the device is buggy to begin 
> with.

I agree; the extra retry is more robust, more straightforward, and more
maintainable long-term.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Dharm                              Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net 
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

My mother not mind to die for stoppink Windows NT!  She is rememberink 
Stalin!
					-- Pitr
User Friendly, 9/6/1998

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]