Realistically, I think it's okay.
The entire philosophy is that the actual data-moving routines indicate
good/bad/short, and the transport routines interpret that.
What you actually see is a proper transcription of old code to new, but
what you realize with the new code is that this code doesn't
Did you try the ideas in;
http://www.linux-usb.org/FAQ.html#ts6
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Manish Sharma wrote:
> I have the following setup.
>
> computer-1
> Abit KT7 raid Motherboard, Suse 8.0
>
> computer-2
> MSI-6501 Motherboard, RH-7.3
>
> and a
> KVM Switch...with USB connectors to share
I have not looked at this at all, maybe this is nonsense,
but at very first sight, when I see this patch, with code like
result = usb_storage_bulk_transport(us, SCSI_DATA_READ,
buf, bulklen, 0);
- if (result != USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_GOOD)
+
Greg, attached is a patch to usb-storage for 2.5.x -- please apply.
This patch generally cleans up the return codes between the various layers
of the usb-storage driver. There was previously some confusion about when
to use what set of return codes. This patch should clean that up.
It is origi
I have the following setup.
computer-1
Abit KT7 raid Motherboard, Suse 8.0
computer-2
MSI-6501 Motherboard, RH-7.3
and a
KVM Switch...with USB connectors to share mouse and keyboard.
I need to do the following..
share the USB Keyboard and USB mouse and monitor between these 2 computers..
Her
> Actually, I was trying to generalize the way the arm arch already did it
> with the arch/arm/mach-sa1100/pcipool.c see the comments in pcipool.c as it
> was added for the ohci case.
Which is why it works smoothly. "Better" is the issue I touched on.
In this case UML could generalize in several
>>Also, I'd be happier if we had the device side ("gadget")
>>APIs further along. Both should be using the same URBs, the
>>same submit/unlink/complete model ... with the split pretty
>>much right there at "usb_bus". In one case the requests would
>>go to some HCD, that multiplexes devices, sche
Doug Alcorn wrote:
> Here's what I think I know about using interrupt endpoints. You
> create a urb with a completion handler. You fill in the urb with a
> data transfer buffer the size of the endpoint's wMaxPacketSize and the
> interval set to endpoint->bInterval. Then you submit this urb. Wh
Greg --
This patch looks reasonable. Please send to Linus for 2.4 (and 2.5 if
applicable)
Matt
- Forwarded message from Tim Schmielau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 13:45:52 +0200
From: Tim Schmielau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [linux-usb-devel] [patch] fix compares of
º» ¸ÞÀÏÀº Á¤º¸Åë½ÅºÎ ±Ç°í »çÇ׿¡ ÀÇ°Å Á¦¸ñ¿¡ [±¤°í]¶ó Ç¥½ÃµÈ ±¤°í ¸ÞÀÏÀÔ´Ï´Ù. [¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ] ¹öÆ°À» Ŭ¸¯ÇÏ½Ã¸é ¼ö½Å°ÅºÎ󸮰¡ ÀÌ·ç¾î Áý´Ï´Ù. »çÀü Çã¶ô¾øÀÌ ¸ÞÀÏÀ» º¸³»°Ô µÈÁ¡ »ç°úµå¸³´Ï´Ù. º» ¸ÞÀÏÀº Á¤º¸Åë½Å¸Á ÀÌ¿ëÃËÁø ¹× Á¤º¸º¸È£ µî¿¡ °üÇÑ ¹ý·ü Á¦ 50Á¶¿¡ ÀÇ°ÅÇÑ [±¤°í] ¸Þ
Dear Linux kernel code maintainer,
on rechecking the current stable kernel code, I found some places where jiffies
were compared in a way that seems to break when they wrap. For these,
I made up patches to use the macros "time_before()" or "time_after()"
that are supposed to handle wraparound cor
Dear Linux kernel code maintainer,
on rechecking the current stable kernel code, I found some places where jiffies
were compared in a way that seems to break when they wrap. For these,
I made up patches to use the macros "time_before()" or "time_after()"
that are supposed to handle wraparound cor
12 matches
Mail list logo
