Re: [cbm4linux-users] Problems with cbm4linux

[Dirk J. <do...@cu...>]

Hello Spiro,

> 1. The compilation bug for 2.6 (1238239): Does this mean that
>    parport_find_number(lp) replaces the loop from before? Doesn't the
>    new loop work at all, or is this just a shortcut?

Linux 2.6 does not have the parport_enumerate() function. It was 
replaced by parport_find_number() which saves you from coding such a 
bogus loop.

>    BTW: Why did you rearrange the for() loop into a while() loop? (just
>    out of curiosity, not that it matters)

Just personal taste. I don't like for() loops with an empty body.

> 2. The reset patch: Your description tells us that < 0 is a "smart
>    reset", while "== 0" performs no reset at all. Anyway, I cannot find
>    a difference between these two. Is this "smart reset" what Joe
>    proposed, thus, something to be added in the future, or what is this
>    for?

I just copied the description from the comments next to the "int reset" 
definition. I haven't checked if the comments make any sense.

>    Anyway, I see you insist on your "no reset" default. Wouldn't it be
>    better to use a "safe" setting, thus, perform a reset, and let it be
>    disabled by knowledgeable people only?

You got that wrong. I changed the semantics of the reset variable from 
beeing a boolean to the actual number of seconds that should be spent 
waiting after reset. My patch does not alter the default of a 5 second 
wait, but now this time is configurable via the reset variable.

-- 
---> doj / cubic
----> http://cubic.org/~doj
-----> http://llg.cubic.org