Re: Bug in usbser.sys?
From: Philip Lukidis (pagefault0x0_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/27/04
- Previous message: Matt Kane: "print error 61"
- In reply to: Philip Lukidis: "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Next in thread: Randy Aull \(MSFT\): "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Reply: Randy Aull \(MSFT\): "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:33:26 -0400
"Philip Lukidis" <pagefault0x0@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uddlOe8uEHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Randy Aull (MSFT)" <randyau@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:417eef25$1@news.microsoft.com...
> > Unfortunately I have never done any isochronous drivers so I don't know
if
> > this holds true there. I will check this out and get back to you.
> >
> > --
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> >
> >
> [snip]
>
> Thank you kindly. If what you posted does hold true for isochronous
> transfers, please give me an indication of how to setup a multi-packet
> transfer where one packet would not be of the same size (and this ideally
> needs to work from 98SE-XP+...). Would the final packet in my buffer need
> to simply be less than the maximum packet size?
>
> If what you have posted does not hold true for isochronous transfers,
please
> let me know for which type of transfers it does hold true for.
>
> thanks,
>
> Philip Lukidis
>
>
Looking it over with the analyzer (it's in high demand here), and new WPP
traces, I can confirm that this behaviour does not apply for isoch. I
certainly receive a buffer composed of several packets less than the maximum
packet size. Do the strictures which you have listed apply for interrupt or
bulk transfers only?
thanks,
Philip Lukidis
- Previous message: Matt Kane: "print error 61"
- In reply to: Philip Lukidis: "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Next in thread: Randy Aull \(MSFT\): "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Reply: Randy Aull \(MSFT\): "Re: Bug in usbser.sys?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|