> To: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 01:04:35 +0100 (MET)
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 12:38:08PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > > Here I don't understand you. Certainly an URB pool could be used. But why > > > would it prevent needing to wait. IMHO it would just mean waiting for a pool > > > of URBs to finish instead of waiting for a single URB. > > > > Why wait? If there are no urbs available, return saying you didn't > > write all of the data. The caller should be able to handle this, and it > > simplifies the driver logic. > > Simply returning AFAIK violates the standard. > We would end up waiting for free URBs. > And implementing an URB pool without races is not that simple. I don't think any standards are violated by returning writes short. However, the accepted common practice is to wait until all data are written if O_NONBLOCK is not set, and a lot of ad-hoc Linux printservers will blow up if we don't. If O_NONBLOCK is set, returning writes short is ok, IMHO. -- Pete _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
