Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] USB/IP VHCI suspend fix and driver cleanup

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:14:15PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> On 7/28/25 12:41 PM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > On 7/26/25 9:43 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2025 at 01:08:02AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >>> The USB/IP Virtual Host Controller (VHCI) platform driver is expected to
> >>> prevent entering system suspend when at least one remote device is
> >>> attached to the virtual USB root hub.
> >>>
> >>> However, in some cases, the detection logic for active USB/IP
> >>> connections doesn't seem to work reliably, e.g. when all devices
> >>> attached to the virtual hub have been already suspended.  This will
> >>> normally lead to a broken suspend state, with unrecoverable resume.
> >>>
> >>> The first patch of the series provides a workaround to ensure the
> >>> virtually attached devices do not enter suspend.  Note this is currently
> >>> limited to the client side (vhci_hcd) only, since the server side
> >>> (usbip_host) doesn't implement system suspend prevention.
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, during the investigation I noticed and fixed a bunch of
> >>> coding style issues, hence the subsequent patches contain all the
> >>> changes needed to make checkpatch happy for the entire driver.
> >>
> >> You are doing two major things here, fixing suspend, and cleaning up
> >> checkpatch issues.  Please make that two different patch sets as those
> >> are not logical things to put together at all.  Work on the suspend
> >> issue first, and after that is all done and working, then consider
> >> checkpatch cleanups, those are not that important overall :)
> > 
> > Yeah, the cleanup part ended up larger than initially anticipated, but I
> > don't really expect further changes on the fixup side.  I can handle the
> > split if another revision would be still required, or would you like me to
> > do this regardless?  I've just made a quick test moving the first patch to
> > the end of the series and it didn't cause any conflicts, hence there won't 
> > be any dependencies between the two patch sets.
> 
> This continues to apply cleanly on recent linux-next, hence I'm not sure if
> there's still a need to resend as two separate patch sets.

As I no longer have any of these in my review queue, yes, you are going
to have to resend whatever you want us to accept :)

thanks,

greg k-h