On Friday 27 March 2009, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > > Could you take another whack at this, and include set_wedge()? > > You mean implementing set_wedge()? I thinkl this should be in another patch. OK, but in that case I'd like to see that one first, then see what issues remain. > > I'll give this an eyeballing anyway, on the grounds that at > > least some parts of this are probably right already ... just, > > the mass storage support can't be exactly correct. > > Why? Is set_wedge() required now? Stricter conformance to the mass storage class spec is the reason for set_wedge(). This patch was described as aiding such conformance. Now, it's clear there is one inherent issue in the current code: no set_wedge(). My eventual eyeballing will be because I suspect there may be other issues too. See, I ran the USBCV tests last week -- not on file_storage, just standard tests, on gadget zero -- and the current code passed those just fine. So to that extent, what's needed is will be something specific to mass storage support. - 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
