Re: [PARPORT] Re: IEEE-1284

Tim Waugh (
Tue, 1 Dec 1998 23:45:25 +0000 (GMT)

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, David Campbell wrote:

> >From a driver porting view, having blocking calls as default is nice
> since then you don't need any major modifications.

Yes. (Aside from porting UDI drivers in the future..) The mail I sent
out just now with the 1284.3 interface snippet in had functions that you
could just put NULL as the async parameter, and they would be blocking.

> For non-blocking calls (please give an example where would you use them?)

(Shrug) I couldn't think of any. (Other than a UDI driver, where
nothing's _allowed_ to block.)

> A simple macro would fail for SMP machines as the situation could
> arise that the test says it will not block, the other processor grabs
> the resource, the blocking function is called and blocks... (or am I
> being paranoid again)

I think you're being paranoid again.. ;-)


-- To unsubscribe, send mail to: --
-- with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. --

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 30 Dec 1998 - 10:18:49 EST