From: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>
To: Cole Munz <Munzzyy1@proton.me>
Cc: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@synopsys.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] usb: dwc3: gadget: don't error on dequeue of a completed request
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2026 01:22:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aptrIbp-p6RNGd9X@vbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260905000240.2267367-1-Munzzyy1@proton.me>
On Sat, Sep 05, 2026, Cole Munz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2026, Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > NAK.
> >
> > This is not a fix. This changes the dequeue() behavior. You're breaking
> > the documented behavior of usb_ep_dequeue():
>
> You're right, the return value is documented and I shouldn't change it.
>
> The part that actually hurts is the dev_err. f_fs dequeues ep0req on
> every teardown on purpose since ce405d561b02, so every unbind logs
>
> dwc3 23000000.usb: request 00000000ad92f1c4 was not queued to ep0out
>
> for a request that completed normally, and that noise buries real
> errors. Would you take a version that keeps the -EINVAL return and only
> lowers the message to dev_dbg when the request is COMPLETED on its own
> endpoint? The never-queued and wrong-endpoint cases would keep the
> dev_err.
>
> If that's not worth doing either, I'll drop it.
>
Why is functionfs_unbind() calling usb_ep_dequeue() unconditionally
after the request has already completed?
The change ce405d561b02 looks like a workaround for a different issue.
Maybe the fix belongs in f_fs instead of dwc3?
BR,
Thinh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-05 1:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 16:13 [PATCH RESEND] usb: dwc3: gadget: don't error on dequeue of a completed request Cole Munz
2026-09-04 16:16 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-09-04 16:58 ` [PATCH v2] " Cole Munz
2026-09-04 17:07 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-09-04 20:00 ` [PATCH v3] " Cole Munz
2026-09-04 23:30 ` Thinh Nguyen
2026-09-05 0:02 ` Cole Munz
2026-09-05 1:22 ` Thinh Nguyen [this message]
2026-09-05 2:03 ` Cole Munz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aptrIbp-p6RNGd9X@vbox \
--to=thinh.nguyen@synopsys.com \
--cc=Munzzyy1@proton.me \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox