From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 24 01:17:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88630A60; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:17:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xiaofanc@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ea0-f177.google.com (mail-ea0-f177.google.com [209.85.215.177]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDDE8FC0A; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ea0-f177.google.com with SMTP id c10so2642480eaa.36 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:17:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CfauRAypQJUBtBk6NsOq3zmU8K79FPC6omYJrNhoMow=; b=gCH5DQ1w+4Wq9XUze0CafS5WWDgk3rOibc7g5Ve1NJpxxygiQAOvKmjh55+ymJe3o+ MMxPr2euikaqSKPmNJIDwJITa955zRbI/jPAFirA/1I8YuRU1+tCXkM+5swx+bx4MsV2 8p++/FpXSbsaAK8bX/tzLWOLyxHIG9CBq7JXQq7ObSaSWKsuYoTGns7q2hQqs9417AXC MBmXhWHKR5tEnlK2VXNgcHk47U4HUazykvNaKjAX6anQkuliniOrQVvXLBhfRkE6G5Qw TKb5ootiN5BKBvstQ9ycwcuksLelQ2vTTbttkvMf5T/hLM0SusirzKVbiMVWVOdqo1fb dHHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.215.197 with SMTP id e45mr52121199eep.0.1356311822654; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:17:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.136.142 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:17:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201212231040.25892.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <201211162247.qAGMlTm2057387@red.freebsd.org> <201212210838.32260.hselasky@c2i.net> <201212231040.25892.hselasky@c2i.net> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:17:02 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: usb/173666: [USB, LIBUSB] usb_reset() behavior different between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD From: Xiaofan Chen To: Hans Petter Selasky Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Wojciech A. Koszek" , freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:17:10 -0000 On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Saturday 22 December 2012 11:17:15 Xiaofan Chen wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Hans Petter Selasky > wrote: >> > If you look in the old libusb-0.1 code you'll see something different I >> > think. Could you check that? >> >> Not much differences in reality. I believe it is a document bug for the >> libusb-0.1. >> >> Both old libusb-0.1 code and libusb-1.0 use the same IOCTL under Linux >> and the behavior should be similar. >> >> Please refer to the following code listing and take note even though >> the name of the IOCTL is different but they are the same if you >> look at the defines. > > Can you create a thread for this at the libusb lists? Okay. -- Xiaofan