Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 19. September 2001 12:05 schrieb Roman Weissgaerber:
> > Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > > These are usb_control_message() and usb_clear_halt(). I was thinking
> > > > > of doing a version for block devices that uses NOIO. Thus
> > > > > compatibility is maintained in 2.4 and in 2.5 we'd merge and add
> > > > > another parameter to the call.
> > > >
> > > > What did you think of Alan's notion of basically wrapping this
> > > > option up as a device flag rather than a per-request flag, at
> > > > least as a near term solution?
> > >
> > > Certainly doable. I see no distinct advantage eitherway.
> > > If we however decide that an additional parameter to usb_submit_urb() is
> > > better anyway, we should not make this a device specific setting.
> >
> > Actually it should be an endpoint specific setting.
>
> Actually there is no connection to the endpoint from a driver point of view.
> Any protocol to do data transmission for storage devices uses at least two
> endpoints. During data transmission using any of these endpoints there's a
> risk.
So it is a interface specific setting from the drivers point of view.
> As soon as the device is open we must no longer use GFP_KERNEL. A device
> specific flag could do that. For 2.4 this probably is the easiest solution.
> For 2.5 I feel strongly that added parameters to the API calls is the way to
> go.
>
One more thing that can be inconsistent at
different URBs for the same endpoint.
- Roman
> Regards
> Oliver
>
> _______________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
