My only concern is that the behavior be _very_ well defined for this.  I
can think of all sorts of corner-cases (URBs about to complete, endpoints
halted, zero-length packets, etc) which all need to be covered before we
make a change like this.

Matt

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 12:41:54PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> In the interest of de-complicating the API and code,
> I wonder how folk would react to removing the flag
> that enables bulk queuing ... doing it as needed but
> without needing an explicit request.
> 
> How it works today:  when the UHCI drivers find a
> bulk URB being submitted to an endpoint that already
> has an URB queued, they check that flag and report
> an error if it's not set.
> 
> Since any device driver knows (had better!) that it's
> doing that, the flag doesn't really add value.  All
> it does is create error paths within device drivers
> and HCDs.  (The UHCIs do some magic to deal with the
> case, but won't kick it in unless that flag is set
> AND it's needed.)
> 
> I'd like to hear justifications for keeping that flag
> around, which would make it worthwhile to keep it.
> Otherwise I suspect I'll prepare a patch at some point
> that'll just make the 2.5.* UHCIs not care about it.
> 
> - Dave
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel

-- 
Matthew Dharm                              Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

P:  Nine more messages in admin.policy.
M: I know, I'm typing as fast as I can!
                                        -- Pitr and Mike
User Friendly, 11/27/97

Attachment: msg07079/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to