Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote:
Alan Stern wrote:
(1) The locking in devices.c needs to be fixed. The USB subsystem
rwsem should be held over a much larger part of the code. That should be
pretty easy to do. I don't think it's necessary to use usb_get_dev or to
usb-storage: This device (0686,400f,0001 S 06 P 50) has an unneeded SubClass entry in
unusual_devs.h
Please send a copy of this message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
scsi0 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices
Vendor: MINOLTA Model: DIMAGE CAMERARev: 1.00
Type: Direct-Access
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> No, we need to make synchronous unlink work properly so that it is
> simple to use and it works for all host controllers. Right now only
> uhci is where the problem is, correct? How about fixing this up in that
> driver and then everyone will be happy. If y
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
> > (1) The locking in devices.c needs to be fixed. The USB subsystem
> > rwsem should be held over a much larger part of the code. That should be
> > pretty easy to do. I don't think it's necessary to use usb_get_dev or to
> >
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Wasn't the whole point of the difference between them that asynchronous
> > > usb_unlink_urb() guarantees only the first one whereas synchronous
> > > usb_unlink_urb() tries to guarantee both? Unfortunately it only _tries_,
> > > it
well, i'm not sure how to figure out which device that is. you say it is 3 on the
root hub, which i am taking to mean not plugged into my usb 2.0 hub.
there are 5 ports on the back of my machine(actually 4) and 2 on the front.
how do i figure out which #3 is?
--- On Mon 04/12, Davi
John H. wrote:
Did you not get all my usb information from that paste of /proc/bus/usb/devices
Not the information about the device that wasn't accepting its address,
or the "dmesg" trace with CONFIG_USB_DEBUG enabled ... nope.
---
This SF.Net
myway.com refuses to acknowledge this problem. I have said this to them several times.
Did you not get all my usb information from that paste of /proc/bus/usb/devices I sent
you? I also have a usb 2.0 hub.
___
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
M
The original message was received at Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:52:04 +0900 (JST)
from mailgate91.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.199]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
- Transcript of session follows -
550 5.1.2 <[EMAIL PR
VIRUS ALERT
Our content checker found
virus: W32/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
banned name: message.scr
in email presumably from you (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>), to the following recipient:
-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please check your system for viruses,
or ask your system administrator to do so.
Delivery of th
Alan Stern wrote:
(1) The locking in devices.c needs to be fixed. The USB subsystem
rwsem should be held over a much larger part of the code. That should be
pretty easy to do. I don't think it's necessary to use usb_get_dev or to
lock usbdev->serialize, but someone should verify this.
Hmm, c
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Simone Gotti wrote:
> I don't know if this can be useful but when I do "lsusb" I get this error:
> usbfs: USBDEVFS_CONTROL failed cmd lsusb dev 3 rqt 128 rq
> but the commands seems to work.
>
> Another thing is that when I start my linuxbox with the bluetooth device
> alread
This is an update to as223, making it compatible with as246. This changes
the configuration parsing in config.c to accept many common descriptor
errors, such as interfaces numbered starting from 1 or missing altsetting
numbers.
Alan Stern
--- 2.6/drivers/usb/core/config.c.orig Fri Mar 12 17:1
Greg:
This patch implements what I described earlier: allocating interfaces
dynamically to avoid the problems involved in reusing them. It's a
sizeable patch and careful testing is called for.
Several issues of varying importance came up while I was working on this.
(1) The locking in dev
Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote:
Doing less at IRQ time is certainly good, but I think there are
ways to shorten the code paths without doing that. Device
drivers should use tasklets if they have lots of work to do;
HCDs normally just have a handful of TDs to process, a
John H. wrote:> ...> usb 1-3: device not accepting address 95, error -71> usb 1-3: device not accepting address 96, error -71> usb 1-3: device not accepting address 97, error -71> > > starting way before that and going and going> > any ideas?What kind of device is connected to port 3 on yourfirst
Marc Singer wrote:
My guess is that we'll need to check for an uninitialized driver when
removing in case the register field has not yet been set.
Right. Not the most common sort of bug, but easy to prevent.
- Dave
---
This SF.Net email is
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> > On a related matter, do you think it would make more sense to do less work
> > at interrupt time and move most of it to a bottom half? I don't have a
> > good feel for how much difference that would make overall. (Also it's not
> > clear how to de
I know this is bad to ask this question here, but I am sure someone here
could answer me for I am rather confused.
usbser.sys is used as usb modem driver on Windows platform.I want to send
vendor-specific or class specific request to the peer(xscale-based
developboard), but I don't find any prog
- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Action: Failed; Status: 5.7.0 (other or undefined security status)
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail01.dc.dr
Received-from-MTA: dns; arremate.com (150.164.20.70)
Arrival-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:51:04 -0300
Or
The original message was received at Mon, 12 Apr 2004 06:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
from [61.1.218.3]
*** ATTENTION ***
Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its
delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section
labeled: "- The following addresse
21 matches
Mail list logo
