Hi, On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:16:13PM -0700, Keith Clayton wrote: > I re-did my tests.
Nice. But it looks like you forgot to attach the results :-) > 2nd test: used xsane to do a remote preview scan then attempt a regular > scan once the preview has completed and the scanner head returned to > starting position. preview scan is fine, regular scan dies. xsane > bails completely. saned is left running. scanner is inaccesible even > from host box and needs to be power cycled. One interesting thing I > recognized in the process table of the host box is that there where *2* > saned processes running. Looks like the preview scan in xsane uses the > saned process started with SANE_DEBUG_PLUSTEK=255 saned -d255 but then > the subsequent regular scan attempt forks the saned process so there are > 2 saned -d255 processing running and then it dies. Note: saned is > disabled in xinetd so its not getting started that way. The plustek backend uses fork() (or rather sanei_thread_begin() ) to start a reader process after the start of the scan. So you get two processes everytime a scan is ongoing. So if you see two saned processes that just means that the plustek backend is still scanning (or trying to scan). Bye, Henning
