Re: [PATCH 1/2] USB: core: add a memory pool to urb for host-controller private data

["David Wang" <00107082@163.com>]

At 2025-05-13 16:46:39, "Oliver Neukum" <oneukum@suse.com> wrote:
>On 13.05.25 10:23, David Wang wrote:
>
>Hi,
>  > Thanks for reviewing this.  The memory flag thing do raise concern.
>> I think I can make adjustment:  realloc the memory if flag changed.
>
>I am sorry. I have been unclear. Here comes a detailed explanation:
>
>What we call "gfp_t" is a combination of flags. They describe
>
>A - the type of memory (always valid)
>B - the way the memory can be allocated (valid only at a specific time)
>
>The URB is a generic data structure to be processed by the CPU, _not_
>the HC. It is always generic kernel memory. Flags of type A make no sense
>to pass.
>In fact you may not know for which device an URB will be used when you
>allocate it. The only valid mem_flags you can pass to usb_alloc_urb()
>are GFP_KERNEL, GFP_NOIO or GFP_ATOMIC.
>
>If you need to reallocate memory for private data you _must_ use
>the flags passed with usb_submit_urb(). A HCD can modify them by adding
>flags of type A, but you cannot change flags of type B.
>For example, if usb_alloc_urb() used GFP_KERNEL to allocate the URB,
>but uses GFP_ATOMIC in usb_submit_urb(), you will deadlock if you save
>and reuse the GFP_KERNEL.
>
>	HTH
>		Oliver
>  

Hi, I have one question about mem flags.
If usb_submit_urb wants a memory in context of flags A, say GFP_ATOMIC, but I already have a memory alloc with  flags B  and its size
is big enough,  is it safe to return this memory  to usb_submit_urb  which is in the context of flags A? 


Thanks
David