Re: [9fans] new usb stack and implicit timeouts

[Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>]

THere are some disks that do not respond
to the controller after they crash. Also, RPCs carrying ctl requests
to the devices
may not respond either in some devices. I thought it was for sure
an error when control and bulk requests took more than a while.

Right now I´m not so sure regarding bulk transfers, but I still think
it´s a good idea to timeout in the kernel control requests.

pulling out is a different thing, as you say.

ether requires more work, agree.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
> pulling the device gets me a "crc/timeout error", not a
> "request timed out".
>
> but i'm not sure if this is always the case though.
>
> the driver should not artificially generate errors in
> my opinion even if it would be convinient for some
> userspace drivers to have it. those who need a timeout
> should choose ther own value depending on what
> they are doing.
>
> --
> cinap
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Bruce Ellis <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>
> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:21:16 +1000
> Subject: Re: [9fans] new usb stack and implicit timeouts
> The only justification I can see is to disconnect to stuff that's been
> unplugged or misbehaves.
>
> In your case that's not true.
>
> brucee
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:16 PM, <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
>> from the manpage:
>>
>>          For control, bulk, and isochronous transfers, there is an
>>          implicit timeout performed by the kernel and it is not nec-
>>          essary for applications to place their own timers.  For
>>          interrupt transfers, the kernel will not time out any opera-
>>          tion.
>>
>> souldnt the application / userspace driver know better than some
>> random choosen timeout in the kernel driver?
>>
>> also, this has not been taken into account for the new usb/ether.
>>
>> for now i'll just compare the errstr and try again, but this implicit
>> timeout stuff just smells "too smart" for me.
>>
>> --
>> cinap
>>
>>
>>
>