From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261598AbVASGOn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:14:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261599AbVASGOm (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:14:42 -0500 Received: from ylpvm29-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.60]:14220 "EHLO ylpvm29.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261598AbVASGOl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:14:41 -0500 From: David Brownell To: Pete Zaitcev Subject: Re: usbmon, usb core, ARM Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:14:24 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com References: <20050118212033.26e1b6f0@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20050118212033.26e1b6f0@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200501182214.25273.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 18 January 2005 9:20 pm, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > However, David objects to the patch on the grounds that it can damage ARM. Actually what I said was: > > Those patches were added for important reasons.  (Or did you add some > > other solution to the issue described in that comment?) which on closer examination (of just this patch, split out from all the usbmon stuff) may well have been your cue to say something like "my solution was to add a special case for root hubs into every urb's giveback() path ... even though I left in the comment specifying that this must be handled in the original way". As well as: > > Also, I don't like the idea of scattering knowledge all over the place > > that the root hub is always given address 1 ... which you didn't address yet. - Dave