Re: Allocating buffers for USB transfers (again)

[Daniel Mack]

On 08/12/2011 01:29 AM, MatÄj Laitl wrote:
> On 11.â8.â2011 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

Might be the hardware doesn't like this. As I said, the patch is blindly 
written and I couldn't test it. Did you test this on a EHCI port as well?

Daniel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/