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

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

that's what I understood.
In any case I'll run the code through all devices I have before
sending any usb patch. I'm still not sure that some disks currently
working won't cease working if they do their own timeouts. I just
want to be sure.


I placed timeouts there only when I found uncooperative devices, in practice.
In theory, not even ctl timeouts are needed. (I should get
crc/timeout errors even in those cases according to the std).

but I have learned the hard way not to trust any usb std.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, erik quanstrom<quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>> >  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.
>
> do you mean "normal read/write" vs. an rpc protocol, say, like
> /dev/sdXX/raw?
>
> - erik
>
>