Am Donnerstag, 23. Januar 2003 07:12 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Like this version better?
>
> No, it still has that "arbitrary timeout" pessimization. The only
> difference is a bigger timeout.
>
> > If progress in the typical case is clearly forward, the call will very
> > likely succeed. But that doesn't mean that the atypical case where
> > no progress is made can be ignored. An infinite loop is never
> > acceptable.
>
> That's because they don't make efficient use of BogoMIPS; the time is
> better spent cracking ciphers. But this isn't such a loop.
Then go hence and show how you can be _sure_ that it'll exit.
If you cannot do that, it's infinite loop. You always have to consider
the worst case. To simply keep trying only _hoping_ that there'll be
resources some time is voodoo.
Besides storage, the foremost user, will time out, because the SCSI layer
does and under these conditions you have killed the storage driver.
This is the real world, IO must not take arbitrary amounts of time.
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
