On 10/6/06, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is still the case that not being able to distinguish between normal > > shutdown and xrun in case 2 is scary, again because USB bandwidth > > allocation is fragile. The 'xrun and shutdown are the same' is > > suboptimal only because of this fragility. But it doesn't make the > > fragility go away. > > Who says you can't distinguish them?
As you've pointed out, there are two things to distinguish. We need to report schedule xruns, meaning, missed slots. -EXDEX in the urb status was mentioned at some point, as was 'urb's start_frame is out of sync from expected'. Are these reported immediately upon next submission? We also need to distinguish the URBs simply starving for input from intentional shutdown. You are alleging it is the responsibility of higher-level drivers to keep stuffing in URBs with dummy data to keep things going if they care. The higher-level drivers are apparently not doing so. > The higher-level driver certainly can distinguish them. It knows whether > or not it has been resubmitting URBs in the completion handler. So, it's not a design flaw in ehci-hcd, it's that the higher level drivers are broken. Okay. I guess I need to start cataloguing how many different places I need to fix rather than just putting the bandwidth allocation persistency in one place.... Monty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
