Pardon me if this is totally ignorant, but can't we just have a ctl message to control a timeout, which applications may then set on their own?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Gorka Guardiola<pau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Francisco J Ballesteros<n...@lsub.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:46 PM, <cinap_len...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb6.htm#SetupPacket >>> >> >> IIRC, I think the host controller is responsible for timing out >> requests sent to the device (I refer to setup packets), but my uchi >> does not. In any case, I don't think anyone wants to remove timeouts >> from ctl requests. >> >> > > I am unsure I would remove timeouts even from bulk endpoints. > It is true that some devices (the usb/serial for example) need to > read for an undefined time waiting for data, but I don't think that is > an issue as long > as the timeouts are long enough, doing polling is quite easy. There is > polling in the > lower levels anyway. > > On the other hand, I think smart card readers go for > lunch on a read and may never come > back if there is no timeout. Of course alarm() can be used, but > a timeout makes it simpler. I prefer having to poll on some > cases than having to use signals on others. > > -- > - curiosity sKilled the cat > >
