On 12/6/06, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +static int hid_kvm_present; > +module_param_named(kvm, hid_kvm_present, bool, 0444); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(kvm, "Ignore errors caused by a KVM"); > +
If we do that I think 0644 is better as it will allow users to "fix" their keyboard wothout rebooting. > /* > * Register a new report for a device. > */ > @@ -1070,6 +1074,15 @@ static void hid_irq_in(struct urb *urb) > case -EILSEQ: /* protocol error or unplug */ > case -EPROTO: /* protocol error or unplug */ > case -ETIME: /* protocol error or unplug */ > + /* > + * Many KVMs break the data pathway between the > + * host and the device at various times (some do so > + * even when the switch is set to connect the host > + * to the device). If one of these things is being > + * used then we need to ignore transmission errors. > + */ > + if (hid_kvm_present) > + break; When would happen if we always ignore these errors? Why can't we always ignore them? -- Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
