On Wednesday 09 February 2005 2:01 pm, Alan Stern wrote: > Darn it, you're right. SL811 too. But I've already changed > Documentation/usb/error-codes.txt to say that -EPROTO or -EILSEQ is the > return code for that error. :-( > > It seems like a good idea to try and keep separate the notions of device > not responding versus URB timed out.
Yes and no. Yes, it's common sense (hence that comment in the source code); no, no driver seems to care what level of timeout was involved. > Do you mind using a different error > code for no-response? I thought about it at one point, but didn't see a good choice about what a better code would be. Got a suggested patch to catch up to your doc change? - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
