From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [Bluetooth] HCI USB driver update. Support for SCO over HCI USB.
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:55:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EAF5727.7050501@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5.1.0.14.2.20030429145523.10c52e50@unixmail.qualcomm.com
Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>
> Basically I'd like to have same kind of API that we have for SKB without
> an overhead of SKBs.
I'd also like to see most of the per-request invocation costs
shrink. You seem to be focussing on the queueing parts of
SKB-ness, yes? The lifecycles aren't that close; and other
parts of the SKB and URB models are different too.
Inside USB, "usbcore" and the HCDs are already working with
queues of URBs associated with each endpoint.
The USB device drivers can't do that as easily, since core/HCD
owns the urb->urb_list field after usb_submit_urb() and before
the completion callback is issued. Much like the next layer
owns the SKB after you hand it off...
> Here is what I've done for Bluetooth HCI USB driver.
>
> struct _urb_queue {
> struct list_head head;
> spinlock_t lock;
> };
>
> struct _urb {
> struct list_head list;
> struct _urb_queue *queue;
> struct urb urb;
Those fields (reordered) are like sk_buff_head and sk_buff.
How much of that is "needed here" vs. "SKBs work like that"?
Today those spinlocks are driver-specific, and urb->context
(or urb->hcpriv) seems to have been enough of a queue head
backpointer for most drivers. The notable omission is
the lack of a list_head for device drivers to use even
after an URB has been submitted -- a lifecycle state that
SKBs don't have.
> int type;
> void *priv;
> };
How would "priv" differ from the current per-request state,
urb->context (for device driver) or urb->hcpriv (for HCD)?
I've also been interested in seeing something like skb->cb[].
HCDs could use that as pre-allocated per-request memory,
avoiding per-request heap allocations.
> It's now easy to do things like
> _urb_queue_tail(&pending_q, _urb);
> usb_urb_submit(&_urb->urb);
> and
> while (_urb = _urb_dequeue(&pending_q))
> usb_unlink_urb(&_urb->urb);
Those resemble the kinds of primitives I might want to see
in a Linux 2.7 USB API ... focussed on the endpoint (queue),
rather than making the core/HCD layers do extra work to
figure out what queue is involved. And ideally general
enough that device drivers would work the same way.
That first pair is pretty much what any HCD does today,
except that the endpoint's queue is hidden/internal and
the second step is "feed it to the hardware!".
The second is pretty much what usbcore (now) does when it
shuts down an endpoint's queue. But again, that queue
is hidden/internal. Caller needs to ensure the hardware is
not working on the queue during that loop, and there are
some other synchronization issues too.
- Dave
> etc
>
> Max
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-04-30 4:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200304290317.h3T3HOdA027579@hera.kernel.org>
2003-04-29 4:15 ` [Bluetooth] HCI USB driver update. Support for SCO over HCI USB Greg KH
2003-04-29 20:29 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-04-29 21:15 ` Greg KH
2003-04-29 21:34 ` Oliver Neukum
2003-04-29 21:40 ` Greg KH
2003-04-29 22:24 ` [linux-usb-devel] " Oliver Neukum
2003-04-30 0:44 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-04-30 7:06 ` Oliver Neukum
2003-04-29 21:55 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-04-29 22:04 ` Greg KH
2003-04-29 21:39 ` [linux-usb-devel] " David Brownell
2003-04-29 21:37 ` Greg KH
2003-04-29 22:04 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-04-30 4:55 ` David Brownell [this message]
2003-05-08 22:55 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-05-09 19:06 ` David Brownell
2003-05-09 19:29 ` Greg KH
2003-05-09 22:35 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-05-09 22:35 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-05-09 23:05 ` Greg KH
2003-05-10 0:48 ` David Brownell
2003-05-10 5:06 ` Brad Hards
2003-05-10 5:40 ` Greg KH
2003-05-10 5:55 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-10 6:11 ` Greg KH
2003-05-10 6:14 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-12 17:53 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-05-12 18:01 ` Greg KH
2003-05-12 18:55 ` Max Krasnyansky
2003-05-12 20:23 ` David Brownell
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=3EAF5727.7050501@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=maxk@qualcomm.com \
/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