ext David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 10 March 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
It sounds like a bug that someone needs to provide a test case and
explanation for. The underlying buffering logic appears solid up to about
40MB/sec (beyond that the existing buffer settings and round trip time
for flow control would need addressing and possibly some data handling).
I don't see any real value in a char abstraction for most of the cases
where we hit performance and other problems - a packet abstraction ought
to be both a lot faster and provide a more flexible interface for
stuff where usb frame boundaries matter.
Worth clarifying. If u_char is just to provide a lower overhead byte
stream abstraction (packet/frame boundaries never matter) than TTY,
that's one thing. Last time I looked at the protocols involved, that
was the I/O model.
At the moment yes, u_char just provides a lower overhead byte stream abstraction.
Low overhead of course matters on not so powerful systems, like smart phones.
-roger
--
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
