Zitat von Oliver Neukum <oneukum@xxxxxxxx>:
Am Donnerstag, den 17.05.2018, 19:03 +0200 schrieb Guido Kiener:
+ retval = usb_bulk_msg(data->usb_dev,
+ usb_sndbulkpipe(data->usb_dev,
+ data->bulk_out),
+ buffer, USBTMC_HEADER_SIZE,
+ &actual, file_data->timeout);
+
+ /* Store bTag (in case we need to abort) */
+ data->bTag_last_write = data->bTag;
+
+ /* Increment bTag -- and increment again if zero */
+ data->bTag++;
+ if (!data->bTag)
+ data->bTag++;
+
Independent of whether this needs to be split up, do you really
want to do this regardless of usb_bulk_msg() returning an error?
Regards
Oliver
I think it is ok. Our devices do not care much about the
right order of sequence numbers. It is just a hint to abort the last
messages. And the client should know the last message numbers itself.
The current implementation does it the same way.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc6/source/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c#L835
Regards
Guido
--
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
