On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:57:02PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > I thought a little bit about the bandwidth limit in the driver. > It seems to me that there's no way to generically predict > which old devices can stand larger buffers. On the other > hand I doubt we'll ever see more than a handful of devices > who need a larger buffer. The alternative of enqueuing URBs > after some consideration seems to be quite wasteful, because > it would mean a lot of little packets needing to be processed. > So how about a flag for larger buffers, as a system of flags > will be needed anyway? I think it could be worthwhile to enable larger buffers by default, and provide an option to reduce the size, and see if anything breaks. The set of devices which don't like large transfers might be very small - it very much depends on what Windows does, and my guess is a large transfer size these days.
-- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170 Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
