On Tue, 30 May 2006 11:38:01 -0300
"Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino" <[email protected]> wrote:
| On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:21:41 +0200
| Frank Gevaerts <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| | On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:33:30PM -0300, Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino wrote:
| | > On Mon, 29 May 2006 22:47:24 +0200
| | > Frank Gevaerts <[email protected]> wrote:
| | > |
| | > | The panic was caused by the read urb being submitten in ipaq_open,
| | > | regardless of success, and never killed in case of failure. What my
| | > | patch basically does is to submit the urb only after succesfully sending
| | > | the control message, and adding a sleep between tries. As long as this
| | > | patch is not applied, we hardly get any other error because the kernel
| | > | panics as soon as an ipaq reboots.
| | >
| | > I see.
| | >
| | > Did you try to just kill the read urb in the ipaq_open's error path?
| |
| | Yes, that's what I did at first. It works, but with the long waits (we see
| | waits up to 80-90 seconds right now) I was afraid that the urb might timeout
| | before the control message succeeds.
|
| Hmmm, I see.
Thinking about this again, are you sure the read urb depends on the
control message? It's quite easy to test, just a add a long timeout after
the read URB was sent (say, five minutes) and waits for the read urb
callback to run.
If it ran _before_ the timeout expires with no timeout error it does not
depend. Then we can do the simpler solution: just kill the read urb in the
ipaq_open's error path.
--
Luiz Fernando N. Capitulino
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
