-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:18, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> No. Does that mean you are volunteering to get me a USB2.0 storage device?
Note that the Beanie fund still has cash. If you don't ask, you don't get
Brad
- --
http://linux.conf.au. 22-25Jan2003. P
Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 01:52 schrieb David Brownell:
- 1..N TDs ... dependant on the specific buffer passed later,
except (usually) for ISO (where i == n)
What prevents you from allocating a reasonable number in the general case
and as many as you may need in the
Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 01:52 schrieb David Brownell:
> >> - 1..N TDs ... dependant on the specific buffer passed later,
> >>except (usually) for ISO (where i == n)
> >
> > What prevents you from allocating a reasonable number in the general case
> > and as many as you may need in the i
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 01:18:06AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> No. Does that mean you are volunteering to get me a USB2.0 storage device?
Sign up to get one through the USB Slashdot Beanie fund, that's how I
got mine. Remember, let's not try to optimize something that hasn't
been proven to b
- 1..N TDs ... dependant on the specific buffer passed later,
except (usually) for ISO (where i == n)
What prevents you from allocating a reasonable number in the general case
and as many as you may need in the iso case?
What, and have _two_ code paths to debug/stabilize in the
hairy hard
Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 01:43 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > In addition there are strategic thoughts. Doing this change allows
> > (although I think that it's 2.7 stuff) us to handle more of disconnect in
> > usbcore. We can under these condition link all URBs of a devic
Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 01:30 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > usb_alloc_urb (int i, int mem_flags) ->
> > usb_alloc_urb (struct usb_device *dev, int i, int mem_flags)
> >
> > Explanation:
> > The HCDs allocate and deallocate data structures during every submission.
>
> Thi
Oliver Neukum wrote:
In addition there are strategic thoughts. Doing this change allows (although
I think that it's 2.7 stuff) us to handle more of disconnect in usbcore.
We can under these condition link all URBs of a device and walk the list
if we detect a disconnect. If a driver allocates all
Am Donnerstag, 16. Januar 2003 01:05 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:34:36AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to propose a small further patch.
> >
> > I want to bind URBs to usb_devices at allocation.
> > usb_alloc_urb (int i, int mem_flags) ->
> > usb_alloc_urb (
Oliver Neukum wrote:
usb_alloc_urb (int i, int mem_flags) ->
usb_alloc_urb (struct usb_device *dev, int i, int mem_flags)
Explanation:
The HCDs allocate and deallocate data structures during every submission.
This change doesn't get away from that though ... there are two
classes of allocation,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:34:36AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose a small further patch.
>
> I want to bind URBs to usb_devices at allocation.
> usb_alloc_urb (int i, int mem_flags) ->
> usb_alloc_urb (struct usb_device *dev, int i, int mem_flags)
> and usb_fill_* loos
11 matches
Mail list logo
