On Fri, 18 May 2001, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>On Thursday, 17. May 2001 18:27, you wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Brownell wrote:
>> >I'd prefer to get rid of the notion of one-shot interrupt transfers, for
>> >consistency. That isn't the model for any other "periodic" transfers.
>>
>> I think better consistency would not come from removing one-shot
>> interrupts, but instead resubmitting any URB based on a flag
>> (urb->resubmit)? Resubmission could certainly be useful for Bulk
>> transfers; e.g. if you want to read many MB of data. Could also be useful
>> for iso. Probably not very useful for Control, but why create a special
>> case (like has been done with resubmitting interrupts)?
>
>Would there be any use of this feature that couldn't be achieved by
>resubmission in the completion handler ?
There is no reason that interrupt URB completion handlers can't do resubmission
either, but look at how it's currently handled.
I'm trying to reduce the number of special cases in all of this, and
make everything *more consistent*.
Special cases make things significantly more complicated than they have to be.
--
Dan Streetman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
