[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1110151459030.15129-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:04:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>
cc: Markus Rechberger <mrechberger@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Increase USBFS Bulk Transfer size
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> What I meant to say is Markus' statement that the device only
> works at a certain transfer size cannot be true since
> this size is not visible to the device via the USB bus.
That's what I would expect, too. But did you take a look at the usbmon
traces Markus acquired?
http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=131845614819045&w=2
They aren't completely definitive because the communications between
the computer and the device _before_ the bulk transfers started were
different. However they do clearly show the device working with
24064-byte transfers and not working with 12288+11776-byte transfers.
> If you queue two URBs, one 12288 and 11776 bytes, the device
> does not see any difference to one URB with 24064. It's just not
> in the USB wire protocol.
You can argue until you're blue in the face. It won't affect the
results that Markus got in real life.
> It would make a difference if the
> device violated the spec and sent 188 byte packets. However, the
> spec says a short packet terminates the transfer. But I wonder
> if this is really the case?
The device does not send short packets. If it did, the 24064-byte
transfers would end early.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists