Re: Timeout Implementation
- From: "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 09:11:47 -0800
If you don't get data in time, you don't have to cancel the request. Just
indicate it to the user (or let the user app to figure it out)..
The problem is that you might lose data that arrives during URB
cancellation.
"db_from_mn" <dburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bMWdnT96-M7-8ifenZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hello Maxim,
> It is true that in the normal case, it would be ok to block forever. But
> there are situations where data is expected, and if it does not arrive in
> a timely fashion, the user code must indicate an error condition.
> Thanks for your comment,
> Dennis
>
> "Maxim S. Shatskih" <maxim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eHVFX0EEGHA.140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> I'd like to implement a mechanism whereby the user code can request
>>> data,
>>> but if it's not available, it can can block up to a programmable timeout
>>> delay, until the data is available.
>>
>> Why use any timeouts here? The usual semantic is to block forever, till
>> the
>> handle will be closed (by cancellation due to process being killed too)
>> or till
>> the data will arrive, or till the device will be detached.
>>
>> --
>> Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
>> StorageCraft Corporation
>> maxim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.storagecraft.com
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Timeout Implementation
- From: db_from_mn
- Re: Timeout Implementation
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: Timeout Implementation
- From: db_from_mn
- Timeout Implementation
- Prev by Date: Re: 1394 Error code 0xC0120090
- Next by Date: Help wanted for video driver.
- Previous by thread: Re: Timeout Implementation
- Next by thread: Re: Timeout Implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|