sending zero length skb's
rkagan at mail.ru
Tue May 3 10:54:44 EDT 2005
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:29:08PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > Right, I assumed there's no reason to send a zero length skb out. Was
> > that wrong? I might have misinterpreted the protocol description...
> Are you sure that the skb is simply not sent? If so, that's fine by me.
> I got the impression that things got into a bit of a mess in that case.
> Did you test it?
I didn't test it, but I think I can prove it: usbatm_write_cells(), when
given a zero length skb, immediately returns zero due to the condition
in the loop; usbatm_tx_process() then advances to the next skb.
More information about the Usbatm