2009/11/30 Jean-Francois Moine :
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:15:37 +0100
> Németh Márton wrote:
>
>> I think that the return value of the usb_control_msg() is to be
>> evaluated. If other drivers also not evaluating the usb_control_msg()
>> *they* has to be fixed.
>>
>> The benefit would be that the
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:15:37 +0100
Németh Márton wrote:
> I think that the return value of the usb_control_msg() is to be
> evaluated. If other drivers also not evaluating the usb_control_msg()
> *they* has to be fixed.
>
> The benefit would be that the userspace program can recognise error
> co
Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:13:05 +0100
> Németh Márton wrote:
>
>> what do you think about this patch?
>
> Hi Márton,
>
> There are many other drivers where the usb_control_msg() errors are not
> tested nor propagated to higher levels. Generally, this does not matter:
>
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:13:05 +0100
Németh Márton wrote:
> what do you think about this patch?
Hi Márton,
There are many other drivers where the usb_control_msg() errors are not
tested nor propagated to higher levels. Generally, this does not matter:
the errors are signalled at the lowest level,
Hi,
what do you think about this patch?
Regards,
Márton Németh
Németh Márton wrote:
> From: Márton Németh
>
> The function usb_control_msg() can fail any time. Propagate the error to
> higher level software. Do not continue sending URBs after the first error.
>
> The change was teste
From: Márton Németh
The function usb_control_msg() can fail any time. Propagate the error to
higher level software. Do not continue sending URBs after the first error.
The change was tested with Trust 610 LCD pow...@m Zoom in webcam mode
(USB ID 06d6:0031).
Signed-off-by: Márton Németh
---
dif
