From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 21 15:02:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2CC37B401 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:02:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Danovitsch.dnsq.org (b74143.upc-b.chello.nl [212.83.74.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3B443FAF for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 15:02:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Danovitsch@Vitsch.net) Received: from FreeBSD.Danovitsch.LAN (b83007.upc-b.chello.nl [212.83.83.7]) by Danovitsch.dnsq.org (8.12.3p2/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h6LLuZak077479; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 23:56:36 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from Danovitsch@Vitsch.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Daan Vreeken [PA4DAN]" To: ticso@cicely.de Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:04:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <20030721071842.GC58121@cobweb.example.org> <20030721130013.GI19386@cicely12.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20030721130013.GI19386@cicely12.cicely.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200307220004.21883.Danovitsch@Vitsch.net> cc: FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: differences in USB support between FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:02:41 -0000 On Monday 21 July 2003 15:00, Bernd Walter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 09:18:42AM +0200, Marco Molteni wrote: > > [I sent the same message to usb-bsd@eleetbsd.org, but since that list > > seems not very active, I am asking here too] > > > > Hi all, > > > > the subject says it all. > > > > I am considering using FreeBSD for a robotics project, and I am > > thinking of using 4.x for stability. But, since we will probably use > > USB a lot, I am wondering if maybe 5.x is a better choice. > > I believe 4.x has all you need for your project. > If you really find a problem then the missing part can be MFC'ed. Both 4.x and 5.x have a pointer-bug in the ugen-driver causing memory to = be=20 overwritten outside a buffer when using isochronous transfers. I have sen= t a=20 PR about this (with patch) back in April. **(: HINT HINT :) ** ( pr kern/51186 : http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3Dkern%2F511= 86 ) thanks, Daan