On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> Plus, remember that my original question was whether a "kill the whole
> queue" primitive _would_ be a net simplification. If it weren't for
> the ep0 case, I think the answer would be "yes" ... though it's still
> not clear to me how much of one it'd
On Thursday 10 February 2005 12:42 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > Right. Except that all the HCDs currently handle the single-URB
> > unlink scenarios, so it's seemed like a low priority. If I saw a
> > good fix (that didn't lose functionality) I'd be in
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> Right. Except that all the HCDs currently handle the single-URB
> unlink scenarios, so it's seemed like a low priority. If I saw a
> good fix (that didn't lose functionality) I'd be interested.
It's a shame the hard parts were all written before anyo
On Thursday 10 February 2005 7:41 am, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> We've discussed in the past that the notion of unlinking a single URB is
> unnatural. When a driver has multiple URBs queued for an endpoint it will
> always want to unlink all of them together; it will never want to unlink
> only some -
