From: Graeme G. <gr...@ar...> - 2008-03-02 01:53:43
|
Daniel Drake wrote: > Thanks for working on this, I do appreciate it but I think it's too > intrusive to include in the maintenance-mode stable tree. I don't think > we have a simple solution for the excessive wakeups, so I guess it will > have to stay that way until 1.0. OK, well how about a less radical fix for the problem where a timeout in one thread causes the discarding of another threads URB ? (This one causes failures for my application using 0.1.12). Attached is such a patch. Waiting for URB's is still done by polling at 1msec intervals (even faster when multiple threads are doing it) rather than employing signals and waking the appropriate thread. Graeme Gill. |