Calm down.
We should discuss this problem in a rational way. I believe there
should be more stories behind this mail. Even though I am not quite
clear about what happened before, but I guess probably you argued on
this some time back. So what are the current status?
Regards
Jason Xiao
On 6/20/07,
Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2007 schrieb Pete Zaitcev:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:26:15 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The main problem is that the URB does not have an s/g list. If it
> > > did, the whole library would be unnecessary. Nonetheless, we still
> >
> > And that from
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:26:15 +0200, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The main problem is that the URB does not have an s/g list. If it
> > did, the whole library would be unnecessary. Nonetheless, we still
>
> And that from the man who complained about 24 more bytes in struct urb ;-)
