Hi, Greg, Alan, All,
On 05/18/2013 06:17 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:14:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> But the sysfs descriptors file will just packs the
>>> rawdescriptors one behind the other, using
>>> usb_device->config[x].des
Hi Johannes,
On 2013.05.18 21:22, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> I haven't got any shared library maintenance experience myself,
> but from what I've read distros seem to encourage the use of
> ELF symbol versioning to generate correct package version dependencies.
> For Debian, dpkg-gensymbols and
On 2013.05.18 11:05, Hans de Goede wrote:
> There are 2 separate things being mixed here, one is the version number
> for the tarbal (and reported through the libusb_get_version call),
> and the other is the soname (in Linux terms), or in other words our
> ABI major version.
OK.
> I agree that ad
On 2013.05.18 10:41, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I disagree, just because we cannot have the perfect API, is not a very
> valid reason to not add support for something, as long as we can do
> so with a good enough API. To quote Torvalds:
> "perfect is the enemy of good".
Except we're not trying for per
Hi Kusti,
On 2013.05.18 05:21, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> Regardless, this paper talks about 'in kernel interfaces' whereas
> libusb(x) falls logivally into the 'kernel to userspace interface'
> category of things IMO which according to the paper is very stable
> over time and will not break. And agai
Hi,
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05:26PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> I've been in the Linux distro "business" for a long time now, and
> there is a HUGE cost to ABI breaking library releases. And almost
> always the old and new version will need to be maintained in parallel
> for a long time. F
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:14:08PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > But the sysfs descriptors file will just packs the
> > rawdescriptors one behind the other, using
> > usb_device->config[x].desc.wTotalLength, where as
> > userspace only sees the length adve
On Sat, 18 May 2013, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While working on libusb's descriptor parsing code I ended up
> referencing the kernels drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c and
> drivers/usb/core/devio.c files. And I noticed a worrisome
> discrepancy.
>
> The sysfs descriptors file for a usb device,
Hi All,
While working on libusb's descriptor parsing code I ended up
referencing the kernels drivers/usb/core/sysfs.c and
drivers/usb/core/devio.c files. And I noticed a worrisome
discrepancy.
The sysfs descriptors file for a usb device, as well
as its /dev/bus/usb/xxx/yyy device node both behave
Hi,
While reviewing host_endian handling in the descriptor code
(for the BOS / ss-ep-comp desc support), I noticed something weird
in the wince code:
static int wince_get_device_descriptor(
struct libusb_device *device,
unsigned char *buffer, int *host_endian)
{
struct wince_devi
Hi,
On 05/18/2013 01:31 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
On 2013.05.17 14:43, Hans de Goede wrote:
Now, if you tell me that, no, we shouldn't really change the major
there, and that updating the minor would do, then I'm going to touch
what I am really after here:
Why the heck do "we" seem so hell be
Hi,
On 05/18/2013 01:31 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.05.17 14:43, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> If we were to design this from scratch I would completely agree. But
>> we're not and we have
>> to maintain ABI and API compatibility, so I've to strongly NACK this
>> part of your patch:
>>
>> @@ -53
12 matches
Mail list logo
