On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:18 +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
>
> >
> > So looking at this, I wonder...
> >
> > Why is that FLAG_LINK_INTR thing not just always used?
> >
> > The _only_ thing that FLAG_LINK_INTR does is to cause
> >
> > usbnet_link_change(dev, 0, 0);
>
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 21:18 +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Why is it called "FLAG_LINK_INTR" anyway? There doesn't seem to be
> > anything "INTR" about it.
>
> Beats me. I can only say that I always find naming difficult...
> We could ask Ben, who introduced it in:
It used to be done over USB inte
Linus Torvalds writes:
> So looking at this, I wonder...
>
> Why is that FLAG_LINK_INTR thing not just always used?
>
> The _only_ thing that FLAG_LINK_INTR does is to cause
>
> usbnet_link_change(dev, 0, 0);
>
> to be called after network device attach. That doesn't seem to be
> controv
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 11:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Why is that FLAG_LINK_INTR thing not just always used?
>
> The _only_ thing that FLAG_LINK_INTR does is to cause
>
> usbnet_link_change(dev, 0, 0);
>
> to be called after network device attach. That doesn't seem to be
> controver
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> usbnet_link_change will call schedule_work and should be
> avoided if bind is failing. Otherwise we will end up with
> scheduled work referring to a netdev which has gone away.
>
> Instead of making the call conditional, we can just defer
> it t
From: Bjørn Mork
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 21:15:36 +0100
> usbnet_link_change will call schedule_work and should be
> avoided if bind is failing. Otherwise we will end up with
> scheduled work referring to a netdev which has gone away.
>
> Instead of making the call conditional, we can just defer
>
