Alan Stern wrote: > There are two possibilities to consider when an URB containing several > packets of data is submitted: > > 1. The slots for the first few packets have already expired, but > the remaining packets will be transferred okay. > > 2. The slots for all the packets in the URB have expired. > > In case 1 there is data loss but the queuing remains intact. In case 2 > the queuing is broken. > > It sounds like you're saying that case 1 submissions should succeed > (and return -EXDEV status for the statuses of the missed packets), > whereas case 2 submissions should fail outright (say with an -EXDEV > error, which is currently not used for URB submission).
This wasn't exactly what I meant, but your proposal is turns out to be the only logical way of reporting errors when only some of the URB's packets fail. Regards, Clemens -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
