From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754144Ab1HKXaA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:30:00 -0400
Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:48677 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753627Ab1HKX36 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 19:29:58 -0400
From: =?utf-8?B?TWF0xJtq?= Laitl <matej@laitl.cz>
To: Daniel Mack <zonque@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
        Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>, pedrib@gmail.com,
        William Light <wrl@illest.net>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Allocating buffers for USB transfers (again)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:29:53 +0200
Message-ID: <3166003.Y8gKYdUrh9@edgy>
Organization: FJFI =?UTF-8?B?xIxWVVQ=?=
User-Agent: KMail/4.7.0  (Linux/3.1.0-rc1-00043-ge61d19b; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CACTFLAMcOMv4D8k-P24TAkPwLRgYps4hoO-vC1NH+cibcsrUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1108101025250.1917-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> <20110811180507.GC5884@xanatos> <CACTFLAMcOMv4D8k-P24TAkPwLRgYps4hoO-vC1NH+cibcsrUFQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11. 8. 2011 Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Sarah Sharp
> > Because according to Matej, he applied that patch, plus my patch to
> > reject zero-length buffers[1], and he saw debugging that indicated he
> > *did* see zero-length buffers.  Is there any chance your driver might
> > submit a zero-length buffer in the middle of the isochronous URB
> > transfer array?
> 
> Hmm, judging from the code, this can only ever happen if we receive an
> inbound iso frame which has a valid status and an actual_length of
> zero. Also, it was not neccessary to catch this case for EHCI.
> 
> Maetj, does this patch make any difference?

This patch actually makes the sound playback _worse_. Now I get strange 
squawks where previously at least first seconds of a song sounded normally.

However, I no longer get "zero length buffer submitted" or that "... Weird." 
debug messages, only several megabytes of: (should I post these somewhere?)

xhci_hcd 0000:05:00.0: Giveback URB ffff880114cec000, len = 880, expected = 
1000, status = -115
xhci_hcd 0000:05:00.0: Giveback URB ffff880114740000, len = 352, expected = 
1000, status = -115
xhci_hcd 0000:05:00.0: underrun event on endpoint

Regards,
                 Matej