> In this case I think correcting the documentation is the answer. > Existing callers should work with the existing code ... though it > may be worth sanity checking it. > > Since that error has been carried up the stack to many of the > convenience wrappers around usb_control_msg(), they'll need > to change too. Example: usb_get_descriptor(), and functions > that call it with particular parameters. In most cases, I'd say to > just describe the return value as exactly what the underlying > usb_control_msg() routine calls. > > Feel like providing a patch?
Well, I've never "patched" before ... is there some docs on the process? I'll be spending the next few months in this code, so I might as well dig in. -Chris _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
