Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:10:26 +0000
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Newall <davidn@davidnewall.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Handshaking on USB serial devices
Message-ID: <20080214121026.16a9c510@core>
In-Reply-To: <47B40918.20206@davidnewall.com>
References: <47B30291.2040905@davidnewall.com>
	<20080214050211.GB1432@kroah.com>
	<47B40918.20206@davidnewall.com>
Organization: Red Hat UK Cyf., Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street,
 Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, Y Deyrnas Gyfunol. Cofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a
 Lloegr o'r rhif cofrestru 3798903
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 900
Lines: 19

> To make it clear: Even aside from the buffer in 2.6's pl2303.c, there's
> a race: An in-flight write URB can fill all hardware buffers, making
> unsafe what previously appeared to be a safe write.  I think it's
> essential to delay submission of the URB on a stop-transmit condition.

Hardware flow control *is* a race, and always will be. The remote end has
a delay in signalling 'stop' there is a propogation delay and a response
delay. This is why most implementations assert stop a bit *before* they
run out.

Given the size of transfers and the internal buffering one would hope the
USB devices do their own flow control if told to properly.

Alan
--
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/