From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.de>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>,
Paul Martin <pm@debian.org>,
Daniel Silverstone <dsilvers@debian.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: cdc-acm: add quirk for control-line state requests
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:23:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1415355810.2671.18.camel@linux-0dmf.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141107091615.GC27326@localhost>
On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 10:16 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 10:05:12AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 18:08 +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > Add new quirk for devices that cannot handle control-line state
> > > requests.
> > >
> > > Note that we currently send these requests to all devices, regardless
> > > of
> > > whether they claim to support it, but that errors are only logged if
> > > support is claimed.
> >
> > That makes me wonder whether we should do this. What do you think?
>
> My interpretation was that it's done this way as there may be devices
> with broken CDC headers which fail to set the corresponding capability
> bits, but still support the request (c.f. our recent not-a-modem
> discussion).
Oh well, yes I don't like it, but we can't risk the change.
> In that case, always attempting the request, but only reporting errors
> if support was claimed, makes sense.
>
> As changing this behaviour now would risk breaking such devices, I
> think black-listing (i.e. this patch) is preferred moving forward.
Unfortunately, yes.
Regards
Oliver
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-07 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20141106170456.GC26196@localhost>
2014-11-06 17:08 ` [PATCH] USB: cdc-acm: add quirk for control-line state requests Johan Hovold
2014-11-07 9:05 ` Oliver Neukum
2014-11-07 9:16 ` Johan Hovold
2014-11-07 10:23 ` Oliver Neukum [this message]
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=1415355810.2671.18.camel@linux-0dmf.site \
--to=oneukum@suse.de \
--cc=dsilvers@debian.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nix@esperi.org.uk \
--cc=pm@debian.org \
--cc=stable@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).