On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.12.10 11:39, Toby Gray wrote:
>> Using a special device sounds like a good idea, especially as there are
>> already a selection of different firmwares available. Is there a
>> particular pre-made board that contains a suitable PIC or AV
Peter Stuge wrote:
> Are there considerations (timing? something else?)
> related to asking Windows for memory as needed
Pete Batard wrote:
> Adding and testing array reallocation code is a PITA
> and development time is always super-limited
Thanks for the clarification!
//Peter
--
On 2012.12.11 00:32, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Why is that?
We maintain an array. Adding and testing array reallocation code is a
PITA and development time is always super-limited, so the smart
approach, instead of ignoring the more pressing matters to do "the right
thing" (TM), is to just use a fix
Pete Batard wrote:
> We do have a maximum limit on the number of (fake) fds
Why is that?
Are there considerations (timing? something else?) related to asking
Windows for memory as needed vs. using the current fixed size internal
array?
Thanks
//Peter
--
On 2012.12.10 11:39, Toby Gray wrote:
> Using a special device sounds like a good idea, especially as there are
> already a selection of different firmwares available. Is there a
> particular pre-made board that contains a suitable PIC or AVR chip that
> people would recommend?
I think Xiaofan, Tr
On 2012.12.10 18:46, Tim Roberts wrote:
> That's way too much overhead. You need to submit larger transfers at
> longer intervals. For example, think about having 10ms or 20ms kin each
> request.
I think Tim has identified the issue here.
We do have a maximum limit on the number of (fake) fds w
Mohamed HAMZAOUI wrote:
>
> From the main thread i call this function every 500micro second on
> average :
That's way too much overhead. You need to submit larger transfers at
longer intervals. For example, think about having 10ms or 20ms kin each
request.
--
Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com
Provid
On 26/11/12 22:54, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.11.26 13:34, Toby Gray wrote:
>> Excellent. I'll try to find time to do some improvements and possibly
>> even add some tests which perform some IO. My thinking for tests which
>> require particular types of devices would be that they get marked as
>>
