In this case I think correcting the documentation is the answer. Existing callers should work with the existing code ... though it may be worth sanity checking it.
Since that error has been carried up the stack to many of the convenience wrappers around usb_control_msg(), they'll need to change too. Example: usb_get_descriptor(), and functions that call it with particular parameters. In most cases, I'd say to just describe the return value as exactly what the underlying usb_control_msg() routine calls. Feel like providing a patch? - Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: [linux-usb-devel] Conflicting comment for usb_control_msg > In usb/usb.c, usb_control_msg returns the value returned from > usb_internal_control_msg. If the send was successful, this is the length > of the send, otherwise, its the negative error. However, the comment for > usb_control_msg says "If successful, it returns 0, otherwise, a negative > error number". So, either the function needs changed or the comment. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
