Re: requirements for suspend()
Oliver Neukum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am Freitag, 4. Mai 2007 21:46 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Fri, 4 May 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > A better approach would be to have a routine which would block until all > > > URBs on an anchor have completed. With a timeout, so that they can be > > > killed if they take too long. > > > > I can't follow your logic here. The partial completion case has to be > > handled anyway, so what is gained waiting? > > The URB's completion handler will see the unlink and treat it as a normal > I/O error (maybe even realize that the URB timed out). The user's I/O > will fail just as it would in case of a normal timeout. Remember, this is > abnormal activity -- in the common case we expect there will be no timeout > and no errors. What makes you sure it is abnormal? What would impose an upper bound on the time a device may have data? 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