On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:51:35AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > At first glance, I think this can all be cleaned up, but it will take a > bit of tree-wide work. I agree, we need a "read this message and error > if the whole thing is not there", as well as a "send this message and > error if the whole thing was not sent", and also a way to handle > stack-provided data, which seems to be the primary reason subsystems > wrap this call (they want to make it easier on their drivers to use it.) > > Let me think about this in more detail, but maybe something like: > usb_control_msg_read() > usb_control_msg_send() > is a good first step (as the caller knows this) and stack provided data > would be allowed, and it would return an error if the whole message was > not read/sent properly. That way we can start converting everything > over to a sane, and checkable, api and remove a bunch of wrapper > functions as well.
Suggestion: _read and _send are not a natural pair. Consider instead _read and _write. _recv and _send don't feel right either, because it both cases the host sends the control message -- the difference lies in who sends the data. Alan Stern
