On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi again, > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 06:34:42PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > The correct approach is to align on the larger of the block size and > > > the maxpacket size (provided one is a multiple of the other, which > > > isn't always true with wireless USB!). In theory short transfers > > How about this instead ? (completely untested, compile tested only) No good. Changing the block size isn't so easy. In addition to all the 512 and 511 values, you have to change a number of places that do << 9 or >> 9. > I still need to be sure if I'm using the correct endpoints on all > locations, I'm a bit confused about do_read_capacity() and do_verify() > will spend more time with this approach if you think it's good enough. > At least we won't be lying to host saying block size is 512 but aligning > on 1024 bytes in SuperSpeed. What do you think ? It's a bad idea. I advise against using a variable block size; keep it set to 512. 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
