Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Aurélien,
And wrt performances, insert comment about Gentoo here ;)
My tests show me an improvement of 7% with some USB 1.1 devices and 19%
for some USB 2.0 devices. I don't found that insignificant.
It's an interesting improvement for sure, but
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 05:24:50PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer I change in SANE instead of libusb, so that other
applications using libusb won't suffer to performance
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer I change in SANE instead of libusb, so that other
applications using libusb won't suffer to performance losses.
I strongly disagree. I know what I'm losing with libsane
Aurelien Jarno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer I change in SANE instead of libusb, so that other
applications using libusb won't suffer to performance losses.
I strongly disagree. I know what I'm losing with libsane as it is
today, I don't know what I'm going to lose with this hackish
Hi Julien,
The problem lies in libusb, it increased its block size from 4k to 16k
to improve performance of USB 2 in 0.1.10 and this broke libgphoto2[1],
so I got to learn about that stuff and tilted when Jerome told me
about his problem.
Also, I talked with Aurelien Jarno before I had a patch
Frederic Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frederic,
The problem lies in libusb, it increased its block size from 4k to 16k
libusb strikes again \o/
to improve performance of USB 2 in 0.1.10 and this broke libgphoto2[1],
so I got to learn about that stuff and tilted when Jerome told me
Hi !
Julien BLACHE a écrit :
Frederic Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frederic,
The problem lies in libusb, it increased its block size from 4k to 16k
libusb strikes again \o/
Actually I am still convinced the problem is not in libusb. This size is
only the block size used to
7 matches
Mail list logo
