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 S1753925Ab0IMPwT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:52:19 -0400
Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:38996 "EHLO
	mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752474Ab0IMPwR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:52:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4C8E4882.6040600@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:51:30 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
CC: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>, greg@kroah.com,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>, Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@ti.com>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND/PATCH 5/6] USB: musb-gadget: complete request only if
 data is transfered over
References: <1283873014-32511-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com>	<1283873014-32511-6-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com>	<4C8E18AD.8000502@ru.mvista.com> <AANLkTinei3u1OZ-eBiUTDF=PDjwxLcL6rBpt7iNQJgHJ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinei3u1OZ-eBiUTDF=PDjwxLcL6rBpt7iNQJgHJ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello.

Ming Lei wrote:

>>   But why not modify the conditional above all that code, just excluding
>> 'is_dma' from it. This conditional already includes (request->actual ==
>> request->length) check. Please recast this patch.

> The two condition is OR relation, not and, so we can't exclude 'is_dma' simply.

    Yes, we can. You're clearly handling only the DMA case with your added 
check, the PIO case was already handled.

> Anyway, the change is not wrong, right?

    Not wrong, but the check is duplicate.

> thanks,

WBR, Sergei