From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <40e9be7c0a41006682219e41b077f806@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:03:01 +0100
In-Reply-To: <fe321bcc50c2892eb6fa513c8063792f@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] new usb stack and implicit timeouts
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 273b7234-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> aren't there device types
> that take timeouts in their requests?

There might be, but if so, that's the business of the device's
own driver, not the usb driver.

>  isn't it easier to set
> up time timeout at the beginning?

Not if you use normal read/write to talk to usb endpoints (which
seems to me a Good Thing).  Normal read/write system call doesn't
have a timeout argument.

>  are there devices that
> if given a timeout will give their best available data when
> the timeout expires?

Again, if so, that's for the device's driver to set up and deal with,
not the usb driver.