Bjørn Mork [off-list ref] writes:
And I do believe the code before your change demonstrated that the
original authors had the same view. There was an explicit exception for
just this case, and I do assume that was put there for a good
reason. usbnet_bh() will be called while the device is suspended, and we
must avoid making it reschedule itself in this case.
Anyway, the ENOLINK test was there. You removed it with no explanation
whatsoever. It is *your* call to verify and explain to us why this test
is unnecessary, not mine.
For your convienience, all the reasons why this code ended up like it
was are documented in the netdev patchwork:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/59488/
There were different proposed solutions circulating, before the test for
ENOLINK was chosen. No-one challenged the fact that some test for a
suspended device was needed here.
Bjørn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html