On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, David Brownell wrote:
> > saying USB_QUEUE_BULK does not only deal with urbs being queued to the
> > schedule (in submission order, of course), but the _same_ queueing is used
> > for the corresponding completion callback? Would be very nice to know for
> > sure. This would be
> > For your case (c/b URBs queued to one endpoint) I think it must be.
> > After all, it's a queue ... queue jumpers not permitted! :)
>
> Right, that's exactly the point. Do I understand you correctly, you are
> saying USB_QUEUE_BULK does not only deal with urbs being queued to the
> schedule
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002, David Brownell wrote:
> > My concern is what (if any) assumptions a driver might take about the
> > order in which the corresponding completion callbacks are invoked. Would
> > it be valid to rely on a fifo-like operation, i.e. the urb which was
> > submitted first get complet
> My concern is what (if any) assumptions a driver might take about the
> order in which the corresponding completion callbacks are invoked. Would
> it be valid to rely on a fifo-like operation, i.e. the urb which was
> submitted first get completed first?
For your case (c/b URBs queued to one e
Hi,
I'm just wondering about what would be considered a sane assumption
wrt. completion call ordering. I do not care for completion callbacks for
different endpoints - if there were ordering requirements, it would IMHO
be the drivers' job to implement whatever is needed. But I do care for
compl
