From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:46:36 +0200 From: cinap_lenrek@gmx.de In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40907190814g652f88f6u817a3085b563fdf7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-mnbihiuradzinwraiobpvujskr" Subject: Re: [9fans] new usb stack and implicit timeouts Topicbox-Message-UUID: 27611c96-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-mnbihiuradzinwraiobpvujskr Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb6.htm#SetupPacket -- cinap --upas-mnbihiuradzinwraiobpvujskr Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <9fans-bounces+cinap_lenrek=gmx.de@9fans.net> X-Flags: 0000 Delivered-To: GMX delivery to cinap_lenrek@gmx.de Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2009 15:20:17 -0000 Received: from gouda.swtch.com (EHLO gouda.swtch.com) [67.207.142.3] by mx0.gmx.net (mx114) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2009 17:20:17 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=gouda.swtch.com) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <9fans-bounces@9fans.net>) id 1MSY5i-0008GL-IN; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:14:18 +0000 Received: from mail-bw0-f208.google.com ([209.85.218.208]) by gouda.swtch.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MSY5g-0008GG-MT for 9fans@9fans.net; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:14:16 +0000 Received: by bwz4 with SMTP id 4so1765970bwz.0 for <9fans@9fans.net>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fQjEUkpAm7iqZ2XivUjz5h1JTseBax0e7VzQNN0zpoM=; b=oWelZkfDeKRW6mppgWFltZp7xB5VOdkM5zvW4+/P8BZY1yKiWxqXEPQFbbT2xZQQRD olgGA7sINxXLjR+GN+Djlm/LBP0wjatWT0aH2Fdgqw6jArFFlSYcruPh/9Y69PkfR27A oqdm/qJozPlBoeGNlg0MkuQPj2kyiq99cI8Q8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=LZE/84lv2iInKwTIlCUiK7JazUIgk1DSFK69C6LhdLa2XljhaVqMdH8q8kj71sH/BZ q+xwSqO9gJ/xDZq1lIzx/n7Wazj77PQDI8OEmAtjR+beDv8FN5rnkiW+gNcSpUJ2MeTV ntH55LRp45Twdf5zAgU0PHr/1J8M4XT0MPdPE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.108.196 with SMTP id g4mr929931fap.36.1248016450267; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <540358d04e4b2c13d1af3f248ff37b7a@quanstro.net> References: <40e9be7c0a41006682219e41b077f806@hamnavoe.com> <540358d04e4b2c13d1af3f248ff37b7a@quanstro.net> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:14:10 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 316890bf8f72119e Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40907190814g652f88f6u817a3085b563fdf7@mail.gmail.com> From: Francisco J Ballesteros To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] new usb stack and implicit timeouts X-BeenThere: 9fans@9fans.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10 Precedence: list Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.9fans.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net Errors-To: 9fans-bounces+cinap_lenrek=gmx.de@9fans.net X-GMX-Antivirus: 0 (no virus found) X-GMX-Antispam: 0 (Mail was not recognized as spam) X-GMX-UID: gQ5Re5oKIyd1dNoi12drItVaa2FkZhX/ 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 practic= e. 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 wrot= e: >> > =C2=A0isn'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). =C2=A0Normal 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 > > --upas-mnbihiuradzinwraiobpvujskr--