On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > I find the aliasing of -110 for upper-level timeouts and the loss of > token unfortunate and pointless. I would prefer to be able to distinguish > these situation when reading user-submitted dmesg outputs. > > I looked at the way we handle those errors, and it seems like there > isn't going to be much harm from letting it to fall through on the > default handling. I only tuned HID because that thing was historically > sensitive. > > What do you think?
I think it's a good idea and overdue. You're probably right about treating -ETIME errors with default handlers. In fact, there are plenty of places that test for EPROTO and/or EILSEQ where it's not really to any advantage. Did you check for any places where ETIMEDOUT actually should be changed to ETIME (or removed)? I know usb-storage is an example. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
