On 2012.08.09 22:25, Pete Batard wrote:
OK, first thing I notice is that the timerfd report is output as a
warning rather than debug, so if your test machine is behaving the same
way as your other server, it means that you have silenced warnings
there, which I'd strongly recommend against.
Hi Tim,
Sorry for the delay in the replay was on something else ;)
On 2012-07-24, at 12:41 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:
Here's the code and output of my test. I'm trying to understand what's going
wrong! I mean that I'm expecting the callback function cb_xfr from my
David Grant wrote:
mass storage support?
I guess you already have the following in mind?
http://libusb.org/wiki/FAQ#CanIuselibusbtoopenafileonaUSBstoragedevice
//Peter
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive
Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:
I at least need to send 2 bytes to the FPGA to receive back a NAK
in case of a bad 2 first bytes. In case of a proper trame this will
send a ACK or data packet.
You can simplify your protocol significantly since USB transfers,
aside from isochronous, are a reliable
On 2012.08.11 01:03, Peter Stuge wrote:
I guess you already have the following in mind?
http://libusb.org/wiki/FAQ#CanIuselibusbtoopenafileonaUSBstoragedevice
Peter,
As you should be awfully aware, you are replying in the libusbx mailing
list, where, as much as you may wish the contrary,
Hi David,
On 2012.08.11 00:18, David Grant wrote:
We may start testing very soon at my work (Teradici).
Great. Please let us know how it goes.
What should we expect in terms of mass storage support? Were
you able to transfer files or just have the device show up in device
manager or in
On 2012.08.10 08:53, sebasti...@gmx-topmail.de wrote:
Some weeks ago, at the very beginning of our
investigation, I had set the LIBUSB_DEBUG variable to 3 on the production
machines, but it had no impact on the error logging.
This would indicate that the error you got on test is different from
