From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-163.sinamail.sina.com.cn (mail3-163.sinamail.sina.com.cn [202.108.3.163]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 652AE2BE647 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 11:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.108.3.163 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752666963; cv=none; b=Zt1Y8Wch2xC8Qwi5d+gxqAJwIKo3P6JhQG9LV9QTqb5tAc9DnJnFAOkEQlUw2BKN1K4CHGhz7DNArNDFHxcYLLdPU9rYXKFZnPuHvXGcmCFYrgb+0dNw8VAqllO5P7/tI8zlCz0HqPw0gmA64tOZ+rDnqIm+mL+mCe2Iet+yukU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752666963; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OgsvFMXRn2zZp50k7sbQGQYkdfixjsmzZn/vsvELM7k=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=nT+6s6OI/H4vst7innqtz+GVEwxiQpxvRvtWurlYDaWIvPpuCefpYw7txOreIRtgHfigT5glHSwsl8UYP1Rm6g8wdX0BpE+NlhjZObb/fIHci6IhoktXVYejGjQVblKK2+8dmmELVrEND11CIZOyiQV3vK1aq5n5Or208EsmB44= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sina.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sina.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sina.com header.i=@sina.com header.b=Rp0tARzF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.108.3.163 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sina.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sina.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sina.com header.i=@sina.com header.b="Rp0tARzF" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sina.com; s=201208; t=1752666958; bh=ScUq0qxBv9+lwXrh7usT/F4ApTrXMfYTA/RM1sJnWv8=; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; b=Rp0tARzFgWmsd/zKeZXADr5cO98Gjaw67sbrGxNsAMHFlI21KYh4H6iFudLo0WVaD DsIbJqtDJd4ScfMZ3MC9D8MVdgdhDR48Ri2v4lqtyDBbbgUuN9/TOxuvsu3GNPMwNQ 6qhmdkTyWIzBwv+0Z+g6ehyeQLr+jfyvjBOh+IxE= X-SMAIL-HELO: localhost.localdomain Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain)([114.249.58.236]) by sina.com (10.54.253.34) with ESMTP id 6877934400001D59; Wed, 16 Jul 2025 19:55:49 +0800 (CST) X-Sender: hdanton@sina.com X-Auth-ID: hdanton@sina.com Authentication-Results: sina.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com; dkim=none header.i=none; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hdanton@sina.com X-SMAIL-MID: 6259636291973 X-SMAIL-UIID: 4C57464769F042CBA700BEB9672EFBF0-20250716-195549-1 From: Hillf Danton To: Tetsuo Handa Cc: Sean Young , Alan Stern , syzbot+592e2ab8775dbe0bf09a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, LKML , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: imon: make send_packet() more robust Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 19:55:37 +0800 Message-ID: <20250716115538.2206-1-hdanton@sina.com> In-Reply-To: References: <53c07aa0-9f83-4c83-8ab5-6d8663f51b91@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <8be733a4-2232-4bb9-942d-f13f8766a6de@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <40417f2a-e0d8-4f3c-9a37-a0068b6f268a@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <0ad3effe-efed-4304-862f-4c8f901e79e9@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <2ac5d313-c754-4fb9-acd3-21f3b948d653@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <282345b9-9aff-43ed-b66d-76cf51cc0deb@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20250713081148.3880-1-hdanton@sina.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 19:09:51 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: >On 2025/07/16 18:38, Sean Young wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:30:02PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 09:19:18PM +0100, Sean Young wrote: >>>> Hi Alan, >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 11:21:24AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 04:11:47PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: >>>>>> [loop Alan in] >>>>> >>>>> I assume you're interested in the question of when to avoid resubmitting >>>>> URBs. > > I think that what Hillf wanted to know (and I wanted maintainers of this > driver to respond) is whether timeout of 10 seconds is reasonable > Yes. In product environments like car cockpit I have option like change to BOM if urb 10s timedout in general could be reliably reproduced twice a month for example. > - /* Wait for transmission to complete (or abort) */ > - retval = wait_for_completion_interruptible( > - &ictx->tx.finished); > - if (retval) { > + /* Wait for transmission to complete (or abort or timeout) */ > + retval = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(&ictx->tx.finished, 10 * HZ); > > because the reproducer for this problem sometimes prevents > usb_rx_callback_intf0() from being called. Unless we somehow > handle such situation, the hung task reports won't go away. >