Hi, On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Alfred Perlstein <alfred_at_freebsd.org> writes: > > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des_at_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 area than please point me to an existing example implementing something similar. I know about the "kern_priv()" function, but there are no specific groups for USB, which needs to be discussed. The current implementation is good enough 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_at_ 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 still applies then please sent it to me. LIBUSB20_ADD_BYTES() is a hack to circumvent things like un-constifying and making a byte increment to any pointer type. USB descriptors are byte-packed. I have tested the macro with several kinds of compilers and none have complained yet. --HPSReceived on Tue Dec 23 2008 - 15:34:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:39 UTC