Sorry, I find some tabs are still missed even I sent out as plain txt by
outlook. Please ignore this again, I will try to resolve this before submit it.
> From: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> To: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
> CC: oneu...@suse.de; gre...@linuxfoun
From: Chen Wang unicorn_w...@outlook.com
Updated skel_read() in usb-skeleton.c. When there is no data in the buffer, we
would allow retry for both blocking and nonblocking cases. Original logic gives
retry only for blocking case. Actually we can also allow retry for nonblocking
case. This will
Sorry, please ignore this email, I find some tabs are lost after my paste and
copy, sorry for this. I will send another email.
> From: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> To: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
> CC: oneu...@suse.de; gre...@linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: [PAT
From: Chen Wang unicorn_w...@outlook.com
Updated skel_read() in usb-skeleton.c. When there is no data in the buffer, we
would allow retry for both blocking and nonblocking cases. Original logic give
retry only for blocking case. Actually we can also allow retry for nonblocking
case. This will r
driver better supports this.
>>
>>> From: oneu...@suse.de
>>> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
>>> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
>>> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jul
ver
> better supports this.
>
>> From: oneu...@suse.de
>> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
>> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:38:04 +0200
>>
>> On Friday 12 July
.
> From: oneu...@suse.de
> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:38:04 +0200
>
> On Friday 12 July 2013 13:09:23 WangChen wrote:
>> Oliver, my understanding is th
t;> From: oneu...@suse.de
>> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
>> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:30:28 +0200
>>
>> On Friday 12 July 2013 04:49:54 WangChen wrote:
>>
10:30:28 +0200
>
> On Friday 12 July 2013 04:49:54 WangChen wrote:
>> Hi, Oliver,
>> Regarding skel_write, I see your current desgin only refuse its execution
>> when> WRITES_IN_FLIGHT are on the fly, but this is not blocking IO due to
>> write() will not
g
> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> CC: oneu...@suse.de; linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 05:51:04AM +, WangChen wrote:
>> I'm writing a driver for OSRFX2 learning board to test bulkloop
on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 04:49:54AM +, WangChen wrote:
>> Hi, Oliver,
>> Regarding skel_write, I see your current desgin only refuse its
>> execution when> WRITES_IN_FLIGHT are on the fly, but this is not
>> blocking IO due to write(
;m getting to understand your code :)
>
>> From: oneu...@suse.de
>> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
>> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
>> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:01:19 +0
2:01:19 +0200
>
> On Tuesday 09 July 2013 09:32:35 WangChen wrote:
>> Plus, regarding the reset case, urb-status will be non-zero, won't it?
>
> Only at the first call to read()
>
> Regards
> Oliver
>
Adding CC
Sorry, I still have one more quesiton embedded.
> From: oneu...@suse.de
> To: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> Subject: Re: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:42:19 +0200
>
> On Tuesday 09 July 2013 01:25:00 汪辰 wrote:
>> Thanks.
>> Regarding my first ques
Plus, regarding the reset case, urb-status will be non-zero, won't it?
> From: unicorn_w...@outlook.com
> To: oneu...@suse.de
> CC: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: question on skel_read func of usb_skeleton.c
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:29:50 +
15 matches
Mail list logo
