Re: [PATCH v7 19/19] staging: r8188eu: remove shared buffer for usb requests

[Pavel Skripkin]

On 9/17/21 18:03, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
> On 9/17/21 17:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 09:18:37AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This driver used shared buffer for usb requests. It led to using
> > > mutexes, i.e no usb requests can be done in parallel.
> > >
> > > USB requests can be fired in parallel since USB Core allows it. In
> > > order to allow them, remove usb_vendor_req_buf from dvobj_priv (since
> > > USB I/O is the only user of it) and remove also usb_vendor_req_mutex
> > > (since there is nothing to protect).
> >
> > Ah, you are removing this buffer, nice!
> >
> > But, just because the USB core allows multiple messages to be sent to a
> > device at the same time, does NOT mean that the device itself can handle
> > that sort of a thing.
> >
> > Keeping that lock might be a good idea, until you can prove otherwise.
> > You never know, maybe there's never any contention at all for it because
> > these accesses are all done in a serial fashion and the lock
> > grab/release is instant.  But if that is not the case, you might really
> > get a device confused here by throwing multiple control messages at it
> > in ways that it is not set up to handle at all.
> >
> > So please do not drop the lock.
> >
> > More comments below.
>
> We have tested this change. I've tested it in qemu with TP-Link
> TL-WN722N v2 / v3 [Realtek RTL8188EUS], and Fabio has tested it on his
> host for like a whole evening.
>
> I agree, that our testing does not cover all possible cases and I can't
> say it was "good stress testing", so, I think, we need some comments
> from maintainers.
>
> @Larry, @Phillip, does this change looks reasonable for this chip?
			 ^^^^^^^^^^^

I mean mutex removal, sorry for confusion :)



With regards,
Pavel Skripkin