From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ffm.saftware.de ([83.141.3.46]:51489 "EHLO ffm.saftware.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933269Ab1LFMBI (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 07:01:08 -0500 Message-ID: <4EDE0400.1070304@linuxtv.org> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:01:04 +0100 From: Andreas Oberritter MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Alan Cox , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , HoP , Florian Fainelli , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver because of worrying about possible misusage? References: <4ED75F53.30709@redhat.com> <20111202231909.1ca311e2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4EDC9B17.2080701@gmail.com> <4EDD01BA.40208@redhat.com> <4EDD2C82.7040804@linuxtv.org> <20111205205554.2caeb496@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <4EDD3583.30405@linuxtv.org> <20111206111829.GB17194@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20111206111829.GB17194@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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.