[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5486cca80705070107s586b2431m65a3b22be5dca7eb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:07:21 +0200
From: "Antonino Ingargiola" <tritemio@...il.com>
To: "Alan Stern" <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Paul Fulghum" <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
"Oliver Neukum" <oliver@...kum.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb-users@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Linux-usb-users] [SOLVED] Serial buffer corruption [was Re: FTDI usb-serial possible bug]
2007/5/6, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>:
> On Sun, 6 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > However, whatever policy the buffer uses, the fundamental point it's that
> > > when I flush the input buffer I should be sure that each byte read
> > > after the flush is *new* (current) data and not old one. This because
> >
> > Define "new" and "old" in this case. I don't believe you can give a
> > precise definition or that such a thing is physically possible.
>
> One can come close. It would make sense to say that after a flush,
> subsequent reads should retrieve _contiguous_ bytes from the input stream.
> In other words, rule out the possibility that the read would get bytes
> 1-10 (from some buffer somewhere) followed by bytes 30-60 (because bytes
> 11-29 were dropped by the flush). By contrast, it would be permissible
> for the read to obtain bytes 20-60, even though 20-29 may have been
> entered the input stream before the flush occurred.
>
You've expressed in an extremely clear way what I meant. Thanks.
Regards,
~ Antonio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists