On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > I agree with David's proposal above; just make usb_bulk_msg() and > > usb_control_msg() interruptible. But what about synchronous > > usb_unlink_urb()? > > IMHO that's not a good idea. If we change behaviour without syntax > we'll spend weeks chasing signal handling bugs. For usb_bulk_msg() > the issue is easy, but for control messages it is not.
I'm not convinced there will be so many bugs. usb_bulk_msg() and usb_control_msg() both can fail already, in several different ways with several different error codes. This would just add another failure mode, in which the error code happens to be -EINTR. But the drivers should treat it much like any other error. That is, unless they try to do some sort of error recovery based on the return code -- then this would have to fall under the default "unknown error" case. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
