[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDE0400.1070304@linuxtv.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:01:04 +0100
From: Andreas Oberritter <obi@...uxtv.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
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 06.12.2011 12:18, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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.
I see. So it has problems that vtunerc doesn't have.
--
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