On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 05:11:13PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > For those things which don't map easily, perhaps we can do some stuff > still as ioctl's, resetting endpoints and clearing halts for instance.
Hm, have to try to implement it to see if that's really necessary. > I'm not against this, but I'd like to see a real virtual driver > filesystem. Changing stuff from ioctl to read()/write() will just make > my life harder, since I'll have to code it into libusb. Most people > wouldn't notice a change. I agree most people wouldn't notice a change, but more people might be able to bypass libusb easier :) What do you mean, "real virtual driver filesystem"? > > > The problem with saying "I hate that ioctl interface" is that there are > > > still operations that don't map reasonably to read/write/seek. > > > > What ones? I can't think of any right off the top of my head. > > How would you map isochronous onto a read/write interface? Isoc isn't handled today by usbfs :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
