On 10/7/06, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I will point out I was documenting what the code actually did, and > > what the code actually asserted. > > Nope ... current kernel plus patch #1 obeys the comment I showed.
ahhh... right, OK, point. Yes, you're right. Misstep in the incremental, I did incrementally update other comments, missed that one. > So far you > haven't convinced anyone that the usbcore (and hcd) policy is in need > of changing ... that much is obvious. > please stop arguing that point, unless you come up > with a new argument that's not based on misunderstanding!! There was misunderstanding (specifically a conflation between xruns and missed slots because they are not different in my code), but now that is cleared up, I still think the current design is misguided. But I also said I'm not going to argue about it anymore. There's no return value. I just want the bloody system to work. Monty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
