On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smrgrav <email@example.com> 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@ 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
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