On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 10:52 +0530, Aruna Balakrishaiah wrote:
> Greg KH
> <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 11/25/2011 09:56
> PM
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 08:17:40AM +0530, Aruna Balakrishaiah wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:35:06AM +0530, Aruna Balakrishaiah wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > I had not received this mail, got it from mailing list archive. Please
> > > find my answers below.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:32:33PM +0530, Aruna Balakrishnaiah wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aruna Balakrishnaiah <aruna@...>
> > > >
> > > > lsusb throws unusual error message "unable to initialize libusb:
> > -99"
> > >
> > > > with exit status of 1 when usb devices are not listed. Patch handles
> it
> > > > without printing anything and returns exit status of 0.
> > >
> > > >Why would we want to return "good" if there was an error?
> > >
> > > Since there are no usb devices in the system , it should exit saying
> no
> > > USB devices or something similar to it. Throwing message about failure
> of
> > > initialization of libusb may lead to confusion among users and it might
> > not
> > > be their concern. for example: ls on an empty directory will return
> with
> > an
> > > exit status of 0 itself. It is not treated as an error.
> >
> > >Have you ever seen this error before? As package-maintainer in a number
> > >of distros for this package, no one has ever complained about it before.
> >
> > This is bug reported from one of the test teams .
>
> What "test team" are you referring to? Why was this not reported to the
> upstream distro?
It was reported by one of our internal test teams who reports bugs on
distros.
> > >And I do think that the program should return an error if there are no
> > >USB devices present, that means something is wrong and is easier to
> > >check for, right?
> >
> > Why not throw a message saying no USB devices instead of that or just
> > silenty exit as lspci does.
>
> Because that's not what it has ever done for the past 10+ years :)
>
> Why change it now?
>
> > > > +static int check_for_usbdevice(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct dirent *d;
> > > > + int n = 0;
> > > > + DIR *dir = opendir
> (sysbususb);
> > > > +
> > > > + while ((d =
> readdir(dir)) != NULL) {
> > > > +
> if (++n > 2)
> > > > +
> > break;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + closedir(dir);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (n <= 2)
> > > > +
> return 1;
> > > > + else
> > > > +
> return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > >No, we don't want to be doing this, this is why we use libusb, it
> > > >handles this type of thing for us.
> > >
> > > Since libusb_init returns error codes , we would need a seperate
> function
> > > to check for usb devices.
> >
> > >Ok, why not change libusb to properly handle this if it's really a big
> > >deal. Wouldn't all of the packages that use also have this same issue?
> >
> > Agreed .
>
> Good, please fix this there
I am not aware of how to fix this in libusb, request you to please fix
it for us.
>
> greg k-h
>
>
>
Thanks,
Aruna.
--
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
