On Mon, 22 May 2006, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
> > - New flag MAX_SECTORS_128 in include/linux/usb_usual.h
> > - Sets max_sectors per request of queue to 128 sectors if
> >flag is set in drivers/usb/storage/scsiglue.c
>
> Cool - unfortunately, this part of the code isn't up to me alone to
> acce
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 00:48:31 -0700
> Phil Dibowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there still desire for that? If so, I can whip up a patch, or perhaps
>> Benjamin would prefer to do it.
>
> I don't prefer it, because as I am not familiar with it,
> it takes me rea
On Mon, 22 May 2006 00:48:31 -0700
Phil Dibowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there still desire for that? If so, I can whip up a patch, or perhaps
> Benjamin would prefer to do it.
I don't prefer it, because as I am not familiar with it,
it takes me really a lot of time.
> Personally,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The last patch I'have sent to you changes the following
Hmm - I never got it, sorry.
> - New device entry for unusual_dev.h with rev id 0x0103 instead of
>0x-0x and with the new flag
Awesome.
> - New flag MAX_SECTORS_128 in include/linux/usb
Hello,
The last patch I'have sent to you changes the following
- New device entry for unusual_dev.h with rev id 0x0103 instead of
0x-0x and with the new flag
- New flag MAX_SECTORS_128 in include/linux/usb_usual.h
- Sets max_sectors per request of queue to 128 sectors if
flag i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Phil,
>
> Please let me know if you'll apply the patch.
>
> Benjamin
>
Sorry for the late reply. Your use of the flags makes perfect sense...
though I don't believe I saw a response from you regarding:
"You're mis understanding me - I don't care about the te
Hello Phil,
Please let me know if you'll apply the patch.
Benjamin
---
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM Web
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > We keep hitting these, so I'm wondering if it would be wise
> > to create a unified flag with only 32KB limit. I understand that
> > this would limit the performance more than the 64KB limit which
> > Benjamin used. But perhaps it's something accept
> +static int max_sectors_init (struct us_data *us);
> +
> /* The entries in this table, except for final ones here
> * (USB_MASS_STORAGE_CLASS and the empty entry), correspond,
> * line for line with the entries of us_unsuaul_dev_list[].
> @@ -1071,6 +1073,12 @@ static void * storage_probe(s
