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

[Dan Cross <crossd@gmail.com>]

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
>
>