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

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

That is what I was considering instead of alarm-threadnotify
(provided that the time out code in the kernel has to be kept
there, for ctl transfers).

But I'd like to provide the interface as it should be (otherewise there
will be surprises).

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Dan Cross<crossd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pardon me if this is totally ignorant, but can't we just have a ctl
> message to control a timeout, which applications may then set on their
> own?
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Gorka Guardiola<paurea@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Francisco J Ballesteros<nemo@lsub.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 5:46 PM, <cinap_lenrek@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb6.htm#SetupPacket
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, I think the host controller is responsible for timing out
>>> requests sent to the device (I refer to setup packets), but my uchi
>>> does not. In any case, I don't think anyone wants to remove timeouts
>>> from ctl requests.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am unsure I would remove timeouts even from bulk endpoints.
>> It is true that some devices (the usb/serial for example) need to
>> read for an undefined time waiting for data, but I don't think that is
>> an issue as long
>> as the timeouts are long enough, doing polling is quite easy. There is
>> polling in the
>> lower levels anyway.
>>
>> On the other hand, I think smart card readers go for
>> lunch on a read and may never come
>> back if there is no timeout. Of course alarm() can be used, but
>> a timeout makes it simpler. I prefer having to poll on some
>> cases than having to use signals on others.
>>
>> --
>> - curiosity sKilled the cat
>>
>>
>
>