> From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:05 AM > > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Paul Zimmerman wrote: > > > > Anyway, it's possible to do this sort of testing already by using > > > gadgetfs with the "usb.c" test program, if you compile it with the > > > -DAIO option. > > > > Hmm, I see. Is gadget zero considered obsolete then, if everything > > can be done using usb.c and gadgetfs? I wonder why gadget zero is > > still maintained? It has support for super speed, for example, while > > gadgetfs does not. > > I think the answer is that gadgetfs is pretty much unmaintained at this > point (the original author passed away and nobody else has taken over). > Felipe is the closest approximation, since he now maintains the entire > gadget subsystem, but he hasn't done much direct work on gadgetfs. > > > Do you think there could be a problem moving data at high- > > bandwidth super speed rates (48K bytes every 125 usec) using > > gadgetfs? > > It would be somewhat less efficient than using an in-kernel driver. > As far as I know, nobody has ever tried to measure exactly how much > less efficient. And whether or not it would cause a problem depends > on the speed of the system. Thanks Alan. Felipe, are these patches something you would consider taking? If not, I'll just maintain them out of tree. I took a look at inode.c, but I don't think my kernel fu is strong enough to update that for super speed and fix the inevitable bugs it would introduce. -- Paul -- 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
