Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:36:28 +0100
From:      Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Cc:        Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: HEADSUP usb2 (usb4bsd) to become default in 2 weeks.
Message-ID:  <200812231736.29198.hselasky@c2i.net>
In-Reply-To: <86y6y6ubxc.fsf@ds4.des.no>
References:  <20081222214010.GA18389@elvis.mu.org> <20081223151942.GP18389@elvis.mu.org> <86y6y6ubxc.fsf@ds4.des.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
> > > You know very well that there are, and you also know very well that
> > > this is too big a change to go in without discussion.
> >
> > Perhaps you can list them for me [...]
>
> There are serious issues with the permissions model, which were raised
> in Strasbourg and AFAIK never addressed.

This is more complicated than you think. If you require a change in this ar=
ea=20
than please point me to an existing example implementing something similar.=
 I=20
know about the "kern_priv()" function, but there are no specific groups for=
=20
USB, which needs to be discussed. The current implementation is good enough=
=20
for most use cases in my opinion.

> There are complaints from other developers (Warner, for one) that their
> reviews were ignored.
>
> > 3) I think you were mad about whitespace or something, but like this
> >    case, you were not up for bringing specifics to the table.
>

It is limited what one person can do.

> That's untrue - I dropped the issue because I thought thompsa@ was
> working on it, but he didn't touch the userland parts.  I have a
> 3,000-line diff for libusb20 which no longer applies due to intervening
> changes.  Looking at the updated code, I'm still concerned about the
> widespread use of obufscated pointer arithmetic - the LIBUSB20_ADD_BYTES
> macro, for instance, is even worse now than when I last looked at
> libusb20.

If you have a better way to do things then please show me. If you think it=
=20
still applies then please sent it to me.

LIBUSB20_ADD_BYTES() is a hack to circumvent things like un-constifying and=
=20
making a byte increment to any pointer type. USB descriptors are byte-packe=
d.=20
I have tested the macro with several kinds of compilers and none have=20
complained yet.

=2D-HPS



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812231736.29198.hselasky>