Re: Is libusb dead?
Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 22:59 schrieb Pete Zaitcev: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:08:48 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2007 17:54 schrieb Mike Panetta: > > > Just out of curiosity, why do we want to get rid of ioctl calls? > > > For a number of reasons. > > - we got burned on 32/64 issues > > That's actually a reason to support ioctls. You get burned much worse > on 32/64 when doing read(2), because no translation or adaptation is > possible. Are pointers passed through read/write? That would be very ugly. I thought a design with one file per endpoint allowed us to avoid that. > > - no easy support for non blocking IO > > - no easy support for AIO > > That's the main thing (unless we play with mmap+ioctl for AIO imple- > mentation like V4L did). No thanks. Regards Oliver ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel