From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: cdc_ncm: workaround for missing CDC Union Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:50:39 +0100 Message-ID: <6132136.Whp52cipJH@linux-5eaq.site> References: <1358519147-10073-1-git-send-email-bjorn@mork.no> <2214944.HMNV73jJm5@linux-5eaq.site> <87ip6qy2q7.fsf@nemi.mork.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Alexey Orishko , netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Greg Suarez , Alexey Orishko To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Mork Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87ip6qy2q7.fsf-lbf33ChDnrE/G1V5fR+Y7Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Monday 21 January 2013 16:28:48 Bj=F8rn Mork wrote: > Agreed. But I believe the condition should be=20 >=20 > if (!(info->flags & FLAG_SEND_ZLP) && !(info->flags & FLAG_MULTI_PAC= KET)) { > .. > } else { > urb->transfer_flags |=3D URB_ZERO_PACKET; > } >=20 > to ensure that we send the ZLP in this case. Why? If a driver wants ZLP, it can set FLAG_SEND_ZLP. Your proposed cha= nge would take away an option from drivers without any gain. > > Besides you may want the current behavior. >=20 > Why? Does it ever make sense to prevent both the short packet and the > ZLP? Why not? It is possible and a driver may want it, so why forbid it? Especially, as in theory it takes least bandwidth as a solution. Regards Oliver -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html