Am Montag, 20. Januar 2003 21:41 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >>>Removals? Additions? Comments?
> >>
> >>Yes, I'll be glad to see more of the usbcore cleanups happen.
> >>Here are a random bunch of things
> >>
> >> - Someone just emailed me for help on that classic, and still
> >> unresolved, issue of associating a device from 'lsusb' (etc)
> >> with the right /dev/... printer node. This is largely an
> >> issue usbcore (or the driver model) should solve; it's not
> >> specific to printers (or scanners, or any other driver).
> >
> > Not terribly specific to USB. That's why driverfs was invented,
> > wasn't it?
>
> But it's still un-resolved, and we _know_ this is an end-user
Sadly, you are right.
> configurability (usability) issue already. More impact than many
> other problems that get discussed here...
Ehm, we are fixing bugs. So I'd say that these problems we
usually discuss should not have visible impact except for increased
stability ;-)
> And near as I can tell, NO driverfs hasn't wanted to solve this
> in any general way; that'd be "devfs", maybe. Though I've seen
> some block devices showing up through symlinks whose basenames
> match /dev/... node basenames, and that might be useful.
Well, we could probably code something up that exports major,minor
for the character devices from usbcore. But I am not happy with that.
It's a kludge and fundamentally racy, just as bad as the old usbd.
We'd have to implement our own symlinks with revalidation to do this
cleanly. I am afraid that this is not so simple.
What do you think? Besides Pat and Greg will probably be after our skins
for doing that.
> >>That's hardly a complete list of course.
> >
> > And how much is 2.7? It's a very long list :-(.
>
> Is it? Depends how many people are taking things off it,
> and I'd hope the point of having a shared list is that
> it's easier for lurkers to help. (There are quite a lot
> of folk who'd like to make small contributions, but aren't
> quite sure where to start.)
>
> > I am afraid we'll have to set priorities.
>
> I think the effective way to do that, in Linux, is to
> pick a bug and fix it ... then repeat. If lots of
> people are doing that, coordination can prevent wasted
> effort; one way we coordinate is by merging into Greg's
> trees and then into Linus' and Marcelo's trees.
What you posted are improvements for sure, but are they bugs?
When will we go to code freeze?
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
