On Monday 08 December 2003 11:41, Duncan Sands wrote: > Sure, but it is my impression (based on nothing at all, like all the best > opinions) that the situation is like this: > > Number of places that wrongly rely on usb_unlink_urb (sync) behaving > the way Alan suggested it should: lots. > > Number of places that would break if Alan's semantics were implemented: > little. > > Number of ways that current semantics are more useful than the > proposed semantics: little.
I can't say it better... Most unlinks are done at disconnect, and clearly they have to be synchronous and there is no sense of failure or retry. But I won't wait until 2.7 best regards Wolfgang Mües ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id78&alloc_id371&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
