On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
>
>> Please have a look at the following. I'm sure Greg will be happy that
>> we are killing these bugs before they become fodder for -stable. Thanks
>
> Wow, do you really think all these changes will e
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> Please have a look at the following. I'm sure Greg will be happy that
> we are killing these bugs before they become fodder for -stable. Thanks
Wow, do you really think all these changes will ever go into -stable?
I'm doubtful; they're rather large.
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 10:58 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > Ok, so the root issue is that the peering code needs to see
> > hcd->primary_hcd = NULL to know that there is no longer a peer. I
> > update usb_remove_hcd() to clear out ->shared_hcd and ->primar
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> Ok, so the root issue is that the peering code needs to see
> hcd->primary_hcd = NULL to know that there is no longer a peer. I
> update usb_remove_hcd() to clear out ->shared_hcd and ->primary_hcd
> under the peer lock before we allow the root hub to be
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> > In general I agree, and I like the compartmentalization of only needing
> > to take the lock in hub.c. But I still think we have a hole with a
> > scenario like the following (granted, this should never happen in
> > current code...):
> >
> > CPU1
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:13 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:21 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Assume that the peer of a superspeed port is the port with the same id
> > > on the shared_hcd root hub. This identification scheme
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:21 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
>>
>> > Assume that the peer of a superspeed port is the port with the same id
>> > on the shared_hcd root hub. This identification scheme is requ
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:21 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > Assume that the peer of a superspeed port is the port with the same id
> > on the shared_hcd root hub. This identification scheme is required of
> > external hubs by the USB3 spec [1]. However,
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Dan Williams wrote:
> Assume that the peer of a superspeed port is the port with the same id
> on the shared_hcd root hub. This identification scheme is required of
> external hubs by the USB3 spec [1]. However, for root hubs, tier mismatch
> may be in effect [2]. Tier mism
Assume that the peer of a superspeed port is the port with the same id
on the shared_hcd root hub. This identification scheme is required of
external hubs by the USB3 spec [1]. However, for root hubs, tier mismatch
may be in effect [2]. Tier mismatch can only be enumerated via platform
firmware.
10 matches
Mail list logo