On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > If it ever turns out that I really do need to see the transfer_flags, I'll
> > let you know!
>
> Well, that would be undesirable, because it will cause an API shift again.
> So why not to include it right away? I am not including it right now because
> it's mostly useless, and the text line is getting too long. Also, I managed
> to run out of space in the binary packet (it wasn't in the patch, but I'm
> working on it).
Right now, I think transfer_flags would be useless. However I have in
mind the discussions with David and Monty back last November about
improved reliability and latency for ISO transfers. One of the outcomes
of that discussion was a proposal for a new transfer flag with
significantly different semantics from the existing URB_ISO_ASAP.
None of that stuff has been implemented yet, but we may get around to
doing it eventually ("in the fullness of time..."). Anyway, when we do,
being able to see the transfer_flags value could be a useful debugging
tool. For general usage, though, I don't think it will help anybody very
much.
So overall my advice is this: If adding it in is at all tricky or awkward,
then don't bother. We won't miss it.
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
