Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] USB/IP VHCI suspend fix and driver cleanup

[Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com>]

On 7/28/25 12:41 PM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 7/26/25 9:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 01:08:02AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>> The USB/IP Virtual Host Controller (VHCI) platform driver is expected to
>>> prevent entering system suspend when at least one remote device is
>>> attached to the virtual USB root hub.
>>>
>>> However, in some cases, the detection logic for active USB/IP
>>> connections doesn't seem to work reliably, e.g. when all devices
>>> attached to the virtual hub have been already suspended.  This will
>>> normally lead to a broken suspend state, with unrecoverable resume.
>>>
>>> The first patch of the series provides a workaround to ensure the
>>> virtually attached devices do not enter suspend.  Note this is currently
>>> limited to the client side (vhci_hcd) only, since the server side
>>> (usbip_host) doesn't implement system suspend prevention.
>>>
>>> Additionally, during the investigation I noticed and fixed a bunch of
>>> coding style issues, hence the subsequent patches contain all the
>>> changes needed to make checkpatch happy for the entire driver.
>>
>> You are doing two major things here, fixing suspend, and cleaning up
>> checkpatch issues.  Please make that two different patch sets as those
>> are not logical things to put together at all.  Work on the suspend
>> issue first, and after that is all done and working, then consider
>> checkpatch cleanups, those are not that important overall :)
> 
> Yeah, the cleanup part ended up larger than initially anticipated, but I
> don't really expect further changes on the fixup side.  I can handle the
> split if another revision would be still required, or would you like me to
> do this regardless?  I've just made a quick test moving the first patch to
> the end of the series and it didn't cause any conflicts, hence there won't 
> be any dependencies between the two patch sets.

This continues to apply cleanly on recent linux-next, hence I'm not sure if
there's still a need to resend as two separate patch sets.

Please let me know how should we move further.

Thanks,
Cristian