Jeroen Roodhart wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> Lars Doelle wrote:
>
> |I"ve a Graphire tablet (Vendor=056a ProdID=0011 Rev= 2.03), that i use
> |with the pen.
> |
> |Does anyone experience the same problem and/or has a patch at hand?
>
> Same problem here,
Oliver Neukum wrote:
That tells us the there is a multitude of operations that need locking.
Not that these operations are common. Maybe except usbfs. Wouldn't
usbfs be happy with down_read()?
The issue was whether providing one "global" mutex could do the
whole job, I thought.
Consider: one users
On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 21:16, Jonathan Filiatrault wrote:
> Here it is: another nforce2 hardware bug. The ehci controller seems to
> send a massive number of interrupts to the kernel (264379 per second).
> This uses about 5 to 10% of the cpu. This shows up in top in the
> "hi"(hard interrupts) indic
Merhaba
Günde en çok 1,5 saat internete bağlanıp, ayda 54 milyon Türk Lirası Internet
faturası, ayrıca Yıllık Internet paketi kullandığımdan 4.800.000.- TL Internet paket
ücreti ödeyerek üstüne üslük telefonumda meşgul olarak toplam 58.400.000 TL internete
bağlanıyordum.
Çok değerli bir ağabey
Hi Alan,
> > I still got problems with my Genesys USB-IDE converter after applying
> > Alans latest patch (max_sectors=64, 100us delay).
>
> I rather suspected it was too much to hope that the patch would fix things
> for everybody.
Thanks for still trying to come up with possible solutions...
>
Am Sonntag, 11. Juli 2004 00:00 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > How much contention do we have, so that we cannot
> > live with a single lock per bus? It seems to me that most operations
> > happen in khubd's context anyway.
>
> I think that was answered earlier: most usbfs
This single patch contains some updates and cleanups for
the W996[87]CF driver and a new experimental V4L2 driver
for SONiX SN9C10[12] PC Camera Controllers connected to various
image sensors. I have not divided the patch in two logical
sub-patches becouse of two independent changes in one common
f
Oliver Neukum wrote:
How much contention do we have, so that we cannot
live with a single lock per bus? It seems to me that most operations
happen in khubd's context anyway.
I think that was answered earlier: most usbfs operations
grab "the device's" lock. Some sysfs operations do too.
Su
Alan Stern wrote:
I don't understand these comments at all. How does usb_lock_device()
violate a parent-first locking policy in any way that wasn't violated
before?
That's part of the point. It doesn't fix those problems which
will show up most easily with suspend/resume of a device tree.
We'v
Am Samstag, 10. Juli 2004 22:16 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > But I have no problem with that; it's what locktree does
> > already, after all. What it _needs_ to do in fact.
>
> My biggest stumbling block is what the API should be (and how to document
> it!). Should the rwsem be exposed? Should routi
Where and how do you set it so usb printers appear at the same
/dev/usb/lpx all the time?
I have a laser and an ink jet, and I want the laser to be lp0 even it is
unplugged or powered down at boot and the ink jet is active at boot. The
ink jet always needs to be /dev/usb/lp1.
Is this done in usb
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
> > Okay, in a separate thread on LKML Andrew Morton has said he doesn't
> > really like my approach either. Then what should it be?
>
> It also conflicts with the locktree() model, since it doesn't
> actually obey a parent-first loc
as I didn't get any response on the usb-users ml, maybe
somebody could help me here, cause I don't know if it
is a kernel bug, or something else.
thanks in advance for any help!
greets
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: bulk timeout on ep1out
Date: Saturday 10 July 2004 16:51
Fro
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > Sorry, terminology mixup. By "top-down order" I didn't mean that drivers
> > always start by locking the root device, then one of its children, and so
> > on. I meant that whenever two devices must be locked, the parent is
> >
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, David Brownell wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > You have to turn on the usb-storage debugging option in your kernel's
> > configuration; without it the log just doesn't have enough information to
> > tell what's happening.
>
> Often that just makes things work though, by s
I have been trying to send a patch for several hours, but
it seems that this mailing list discards my emails silently.
The patch is almost 220 KB long. Is this size a problem? If yes,
I think I will have to split the patch in many - not really
logical - parts and send them again..
Thanks.
pgpf
Alan Stern wrote:
Okay, in a separate thread on LKML Andrew Morton has said he doesn't
really like my approach either. Then what should it be?
It also conflicts with the locktree() model, since it doesn't
actually obey a parent-first locking policy.
So there's no locking "this hub and below"; usb_
Alan Stern wrote:
Sorry, terminology mixup. By "top-down order" I didn't mean that drivers
always start by locking the root device, then one of its children, and so
on. I meant that whenever two devices must be locked, the parent is
locked first and the child is locked second.
So to lock the pare
Alan Stern wrote:
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I don't know the frequency at
which this lock will be taken, nor the expected hold times.
The lock will be taken whenever:
...
Looked like a pretty good list to me. Key point: it's a lot of
different code paths, which have expecteded
I think most of those questions will be quickly answered
if you look at the Cypress website, or grep Linux sources.
---
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
Alan Stern wrote:
You have to turn on the usb-storage debugging option in your kernel's
configuration; without it the log just doesn't have enough information to
tell what's happening.
Often that just makes things work though, by slowing
things down because of the logging.
I think there should st
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, in a separate thread on LKML Andrew Morton has said he doesn't
> > really like my approach either. Then what should it be?
> >
> > Clumsily use different routines for locking the first vs. the
> >
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I still got problems with my Genesys USB-IDE converter after applying Alans
> latest patch (max_sectors=64, 100us delay).
I rather suspected it was too much to hope that the patch would fix things
for everybody.
> Sometimes it works and I ca
Dear All
I came to know that AnchorChips (now owned by
Cypress) has microcontroller that has direct hardware
support to run USB 1.1 devices. People call it as
ez-usb . Am i right ?
How i will know that my usb device is ez-usb device?
is there any way to know this?
What is ez-usb device driver
Hi,
I still got problems with my Genesys USB-IDE converter after applying Alans
latest patch (max_sectors=64, 100us delay).
Sometimes it works and I can transfer 50G but sometimes it already fails on
mounting the 200G reiserfs partition.
If I use it not directly, but through devicemapper and d
Hi Amol,
> I have a USB bluetooth card and I was trying
> to get a bluetooth tty driver up for it by compiling
> bluetooth.c (by Greg Kroah-Hartman)found in kernel
> source. But I am getting a NULL pointer dereference
> exception in the line :
>
> interface =
> &dev->actconfig->interfa
26 matches
Mail list logo
