On Sunday 18 January 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Phasing in such a context restriction could be problematic, > > and of course there's the issue of actually getting and testing > > patches for all the relevant HCDs. Could usbcore at least > > detect that an HCD isn't adhering to such new rule? > > Is it really new? It seems to me the behavior was never defined, > but the big three behave this way. You're proposing to fix this by creating a rule ... which accordingly would be new. > > Last time I thought about this issue, I kept thinking that > > what's *really* needed is getting rid of one-at-a-time > > semantics for unlinking URBs ... and replacing them with > > "unlink everything queued to this endpoint" semantics. > > Endpoint 0 is shared. You cannot let one driver massacre > everything. OK, maybe for endpoint 0, one-at-a-time is appropriate. Nothing else. > OK, if we are talking API changes, do we really want a callback > if the hardware never saw an URB? There needs to be some way to ensure the three parties involved (driver, usbcore, hcd) agree about precisely when the driver is free to reuse the URB ... whether or not the hardware saw it is irrelevant. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
