Hi!
> > > > But no, I don't actually like sockets all that much myself. They are hard
> > > > to use from scripts, and many more people are familiar with open/close and
> > > > read/write.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to use open/close/read/write for control and bulk and
> > > sockets for interrupt and isochronous.
> >
> > What makes interrupt so different? Last time I checked int pipes were very
> > similar to bulk pipes... Do you care about "packet boundaries"? You can
> > somehow emulate with read, too...
>
> We probably could. It would have interesting semantics however. We would
> have to have an ioctl or something else to specify period, and if it's
> one shot, etc.
ioctl for specifying period seems okay to me, and I believe UDP
sockets already have very similar semantics for read/write.
> We could probably shoehorn isochronous semantics onto read/write as
> well, but I don't want to begin to think how ugly that'll be.
What's the problem?
> A completely ioctl solution would work better in that case since it's
> cleaner. The only problem would be the fact it's called ioctl.
I do not think it is cleaner. Could AF_USB be used to get "clean"
solution?
Pavel
-- The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:32 EST