linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] usb_debug: EXPERIMENTAL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0905061614320.4430-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date:	Wed, 6 May 2009 16:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>, <greg@...ah.com>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] usb_debug: EXPERIMENTAL - poll hcd device to force
 writes

On Wed, 6 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:

> Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 21:24:56 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > On Wed, 6 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> 
> > A little thought yielded the following algorithm.  It assumes there is
> > a fixed set of URBs allocated, unlike what you have done.  Does it make
> 
> No, it does not ;-) Your approach is more general than you think.
> The only important constraint is that the number of URBs in flight
> be limited. It doesn't matter when they are allocated.

You're optimistically assuming that URB allocations will succeed.  I 
guess that's okay -- dropping characters when there's insufficient 
memory seems like a good thing to do.

What's the point of that "reserve_buffer" thing?  Why not just use the 
next URB's transfer buffer?

Alan Stern

--
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/