[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206111829.GB17194@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:18:30 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Andreas Oberritter <obi@...uxtv.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
HoP <jpetrous@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver
because of worrying about possible misusage?
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 10:20:03PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 05.12.2011 21:55, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The USB case is quite different because your latency is very tightly
> > bounded, your dead device state is rigidly defined, and your loss of
> > device is accurately and immediately signalled.
> > Quite different.
> How can usbip work if networking and usb are so different and what's so
> different between vtunerc and usbip, that made it possible to put usbip
> into drivers/staging?
USB-IP is a hack that will only work well on a tightly bounded set of
networks - if you run it over a lightly loaded local network it can
work adequately. This starts to break down as you vary the network
configuration.
--
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