From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:09 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Marcel Holtmann , g@kroah.com Cc: Alan Stern , BlueZ Mailing List , USB development list Subject: Re: PATCH: (as265) Fix bluetooth driver's wait_for_urb() Message-ID: <20040428181808.GA15218@kroah.com> References: <20040428174325.GG32040@kroah.com> <1083175733.4000.67.camel@pegasus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1083175733.4000.67.camel@pegasus> List-ID: On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:08:53PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Greg, > > > I know. I really hate what the Bluetooth driver does, and it's up to > > them to keep up with the changes in urbs due to them statically > > including a urb in their structures. That is what they agreed to when > > they did this a while ago. They are on their own here... > > I know that Max accepted this. So I also have to accept this, but this > doesn't count for the bfusb driver and inserting this hack prevents it > from oopsing on a UHCI controller, too. If you unlink the urb synchronously there should be no more problems, as Alan has fixed this in the UHCI driver, right? > > So, Bluetooth developers, have you reconsidered your "need" to put a > > static urb in your structure? Are you convinced yet of the wrongness of > > your ways? Do you want a patch to change your subsystem to follow the > > rest of the kernel with regards to USB? > > Right now I don't have enough time to rewrite the hci_usb driver, but it > is on my todo list. Actually the bulk and isoc URB's should only be > started when they are needed. This means when an ACL or SCO link is > really established. However I think we should go back to the discussion > how we can combine an URB with a SKB in a nice way. This would also be > helpful for the bfusb driver. What's wrong with just a pointer to the urb in the skb? Some of the main reason I want to do this (becides all of the reference counting stuff) is to see if a separate pool of urbs could increase throughput any. If we change the usb core to do this, and there is a speed increase, then the bluetooth drivers would also see this improvement. But by trying to manage the memory yourself, you wouldn't :) Good enough bribe? Hey, I'll even write the patch for the hci_usb driver :) thanks, greg k-h