On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Martin Fuzzey wrote: > > Instead of adding new tests, would it be better to add a new parameter > > to the existing tests? > > > I did consider that approach, the disadvantage I see is that it would > mean modifying the structure > used to pass the parameters from userspace via ioctl. This means > modifying the userspace > code whose source isn't in the kernel tree (I got it from > http://www.linux-usb.org/usbtest/testusb.c) > > Since that can't be modified with a kernel patch there is the problem > of backwards > and forwards compatibility (ie breaking people's existing testusb programs when > switching to a new kernel and modified testusb potentially not working on old > kernels.) > > If the testusb source were to be put in the kernel source tree > (where?) these problems > would go away. It _is_ in the kernel tree: tools/usb/testusb.c. However it also is available at www.linux-usb.org, and keeping to two copies in sync isn't practical. I guess the best approach is to use the in-kernel version when it is available, and figure the out-of-kernel versions may not work with the newest kernels. Alan Stern -- 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
