Subject: Re: [patch 10/12] usb: gadget: udc: Remove in_interrupt()/in_irq() from comments

From: Alan Stern <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 12:22:09 -0400

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 04:52:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Ahmed S. Darwish <[email-masked]>
> 
> The usage of in_irq()/in_interrupt() in drivers is phased out for various
> reasons.
> 
> The context description for usb_gadget_giveback_request() is misleading as
> in_interupt() means: hard interrupt or soft interrupt or bottom half
> disabled regions. But it's also invoked from task context when endpoints
> are torn down. Remove it as it's more confusing than helpful.
> 
> Replace also the in_irq() comment with plain text.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Felipe Balbi <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 
> ---

> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c
> @@ -1754,8 +1754,9 @@ static int handle_control_request(struct
>  	return ret_val;
>  }
>  
> -/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to
> - * both drivers except the callbacks aren't in_irq().
> +/* drive both sides of the transfers; looks like irq handlers to both
> + * drivers except that the callbacks are invoked from soft interrupt
> + * context.
>   */

You might as well fix the formatting of the multiline comment while 
you're changing its content.

Alan Stern

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel