Am Dienstag, 18. März 2003 20:03 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > I agree with David's proposal above; just make usb_bulk_msg() and
> > > usb_control_msg() interruptible. But what about synchronous
> > > usb_unlink_urb()?
> >
> > IMHO that's not a good idea. If we change behaviour without syntax
> > we'll spend weeks chasing signal handling bugs. For usb_bulk_msg()
> > the issue is easy, but for control messages it is not.
>
> I'm not convinced there will be so many bugs. usb_bulk_msg() and
> usb_control_msg() both can fail already, in several different ways with
> several different error codes. This would just add another failure mode,
> in which the error code happens to be -EINTR. But the drivers should
> treat it much like any other error. That is, unless they try to do some
Nope, they must not. There are specific things to do in this case.
You have to determine the number of bytes already transfered and either
return that or EINTR. So you have to fix every single call if you change
behaviour. And of course there could be very hard cases very transfers
have to be in specific order and simply aborting isn't an option.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Does your code think in ink?
You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing.
What are you waiting for?
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
