Hi Pete, > > I think if cat is the prefered tool for viewing this file then it should > > be more human readable. If not, then a binary format should be choosen. > > Maybe we can implement both. Is this possible? > > Yes. Now you know why files were split as they were.
still no reason for me to split things up. > > > But if you or someone else were to hack on something like usbdump(1), > > > it would be peachy, I think. > > > > I can start with usbdump if we agree on an interface. I personally would > > prefer a binary interface for that. > > If you want to start scoping it, it's fine by me. I was going to concentrate > on fixing what's needed first, such as getting control setup packets captured > and things like that. While I am really thinking about starting usbdump, I may ask why you have choosen to use debugfs as interface. This will not be available in normal distribution kernels and I think a general USB monitoring ability would be great. For example like we have it for Ethernet, Bluetooth and IrDA. So my idea is to create some /dev/usbmonX (for each bus one) where usbdump can read its information from. What do you think? Regards Marcel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/