2013/3/21 Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie>: > Do you, or anyone, have a preference for how this new cap should be > called? I don't think LIBUSBX_HAS_DETACH will fly, as we could argue > that Windows also has _detach - it just returns an error when called.
Maybe LIBUSBX_IMPLEMENTS_DETACH_KERNEL_DRIVER > Right now, I'm leaning towards LIBUSBX_MAY_REQUIRE_DETACH or > LIBUSBX_DEVICE_MAY_NEED_DETACH, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions. I propose to replace DETACH by a more explicit DETACH_KERNEL_DRIVER Note that the libusb(x) function is libusb_detach_kernel_driver() not libusb_detach(). It is better if the names can match. It would also be cool if libusb_claim_interface() could report a specific error in case detach is needed. Something like LIBUSB_ERROR_NEED_DETACH_KERNEL_DRIVER. I do not like the code of the example [1] that calls libusb_detach_kernel_driver() for _any_ error code returned by libusb_claim_interface() But maybe that is not possibe to return such a specific error code. Bye [1] https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/blob/master/examples/xusb.c#L836 -- Dr. Ludovic Rousseau ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
