Bjørn Mork <bj...@mork.no> writes: > And I do believe the code before your change demonstrated that the > original authors had the same view. There was an explicit exception for > just this case, and I do assume that was put there for a good > reason. usbnet_bh() will be called while the device is suspended, and we > must avoid making it reschedule itself in this case. > > Anyway, the ENOLINK test was there. You removed it with no explanation > whatsoever. It is *your* call to verify and explain to us why this test > is unnecessary, not mine.
For your convienience, all the reasons why this code ended up like it was are documented in the netdev patchwork: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/59488/ There were different proposed solutions circulating, before the test for ENOLINK was chosen. No-one challenged the fact that some test for a suspended device was needed here. Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
