abel deuring <[email protected]> wrote: Hi,
>> I think we can even get rid of the old SG interface entirely. SG_IO >> exists in Linux 2.4 too, so it should be safe. > > I must admit that I am one of these persons who cannot throw away > anything... But you are right: Doug Gilbert wrote the SG3 interface in > the late 90ies (IIRC, the first versions were available even for 2.2.x > kernels), so keeping the old interface would be useful for very few > people, if any. According to <http://sg.torque.net/sg/> SG3 was first released in a stable kernel with Linux 2.4.0 in 2001. It's unclear to me whether it's been available in Linux 2.2 before that. (are there really people here still running SANE on a 2.2 kernel ?) >> The latency here seems low enough, and this machine is an SGI Indigo2 >> R4400SC 200 MHz w/256 MB RAM and an asthmatic SCSI controller (under >> Linux, at least, because we don't have the specs ...) > > The effects of longer latency times seem to depend heavily on the > scanner models. The Sharp JX250, a moderately fast model, probably with > only a tiny internal buffer, seems to suffer more than many other devices... It'd be nice to gather some feedback on my patch with a couple of different scanners, that'd set the record straight as far as latency goes :) JB. -- Julien BLACHE <http://www.jblache.org> <[email protected]> GPG KeyID 0xF5D65169
