Re: [RFC] vtunerc: virtual DVB device - is it ok to NACK driver becauseof worrying about possible misusage?

[Andreas Oberritter]

On 06.12.2011 12:18, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 10:20:03PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 05.12.2011 21:55, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> The USB case is quite different because your latency is very tightly
>>> bounded, your dead device state is rigidly defined, and your loss of
>>> device is accurately and immediately signalled.
> 
>>> Quite different.
> 
>> How can usbip work if networking and usb are so different and what's so
>> different between vtunerc and usbip, that made it possible to put usbip
>> into drivers/staging?
> 
> USB-IP is a hack that will only work well on a tightly bounded set of
> networks - if you run it over a lightly loaded local network it can
> work adequately.  This starts to break down as you vary the network
> configuration.

I see. So it has problems that vtunerc doesn't have.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/