On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
I am afraid that drivers call unlink left and right, even on URBs which
were not submitted and thus have -ep == NULL. But on the other hand,
maybe we want to catch them...
That's a good point. I'll add a test to one of the upcoming patches to
check
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 30 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
/* power of two? */
- while (temp urb-interval)
- temp = 1;
- urb-interval = temp;
+ while (max urb-interval)
+
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
Related: consider making urb-interval and its neighbors
be u32 or maybe even u16.
Hmmm... maybe. It's not clear the space savings would matter much; I
doubt that terribly many URBs ever get allocated at the same time.
I don't follow. Space
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
Related: consider making urb-interval and its neighbors
be u32 or maybe even u16.
Hmmm... maybe. It's not clear the space savings would matter much; I
doubt that terribly many URBs ever get
This patch (as943) prepares the way for eliminating urb-pipe by
introducing an endpoint pointer into struct urb. For now urb-ep
is set by usb_submit_urb() from the pipe value; eventually drivers
will set it themselves and we will remove urb-pipe completely.
The patch also adds new inline
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:04:37 -0400 (EDT), Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1149,10 +1148,6 @@ int usb_hcd_unlink_urb (struct urb *urb,
return -EINVAL;
if (!urb-dev || !urb-dev-bus)
return -ENODEV;
- ep = (usb_pipein(urb-pipe) ? urb-dev-ep_in :
On Monday 30 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
/* power of two? */
- while (temp urb-interval)
- temp = 1;
- urb-interval = temp;
+ while (max urb-interval)
+ max = 1;
+
