Hi listmembers,
there was a request to explain how to get away from sleep_on and relatives.
Here is my attempt to summarise it.
Number1
old:
if (test)
sleep_on_interruptible(&desc->queue);
new:
DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
..
add_wait_queue(&desc->queue, &wait);
set_curr
Hi,
After experimenting and drawing several blanks with my Freecom Desktop
external
cd-rw using the parallel port, I bought a USB cable for it. I still
cannot use it, however.
I can successfully load the usb-storage module (logs attached) but
cannot mount a
disk. Can anyone offer any advice? I ha
"Antonis Georgiou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I install Mandrake 8 and during the installation my USB (
> InteliExplorer Mous) was working ok. After i finnished it and the pc
> rebooted when linux started in KDE environment the mouse wasend
> working.
>
> I installed it with 2.4 kernel
odes
Dear All,
It's ok to use usbzip in the kernel 2.4.0-test10 , but In the kernel 2.4.2 , I mount
the device , and it will occour the wrong major or minor number. Are the usbzip major
and minor different between 2.4.0 and 2.4.2
Alex
%{±ºÆÝz÷¥+-²Ê.Ç¢¸ ëS¢éì¹» ®&ÞºÇ
éZ²×è®gâzWZ¶m§ÿ
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:52:21AM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote:
> Well, admittedly, I don't have complete understood how the HCD works in
> this detail. So what I've tried was somewhat a blind man's approach.
> However, tentatively not using uhci_append_queued_urb() is a big success
> for me - in
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
[.]
Finally I get it compile & link outside the kernel without patching...
problem was in propietary module depencies of kfree kmalloc and printk
Anyway I've seen in your page a complete patch with no propietary code
to be inserted into kernel main t
On Thursday, 3. May 2001 10:51, you wrote:
> In a message dated 5/3/2001 3:19:34 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > I have read the arguments in favour of different drivers, you don't need
> > to try to explain, but I still don't understand why (for instance) the
> > usb-storage driver doesn'
http://www.dlink.com/products/wireless/dwl120/
Has anyone had any experiences with this bit of kit ? If so could you relate
them. I'm considering buying one, but before I burn £120 I'd quite like to
know what my chances are of getting it working under Linux :-)
Thanks
--
John
_
dear all,
how to install USB zip on linux2.4.2 ?
when i mount the usb zip ( mount -t vfat /dev/sda4 /mnt/usbzip ), there are error
message :
mount : /dev/sda4 has wrong major or minor number
who can tell me how to install the usbzip in kernel 2.4.2 ??
Thanks
)îÆëuëÞX¬¶Ë(º· ~à
Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[ ... ]
>
> Firewire is a better design. There is no question about that.
> USB has no common protocol for transfering SCSI commands.
FireWire actually already does the SCSI encapsulation. The protocol
is called SBP2. Once you have a SBP2 device hooked up
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > - current state should be set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE for each loop
> > traversing. schedule() always returns RUNNABLE, so we would only
> > sleep once.
>
> How could the condition be true, once we are woken up ?
Waiting on several events on the sa
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Martin Diehl wrote:
> Ok, seems I should check that. My reading of UHCI-1.1 docs, p32 was, the
> HC would never advance to the next QH on NAK (or other error)...
Done - I was wrong. The advance criteria is only applied to the vertical
processing. paperbag for blind men's appr
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Georg Acher wrote:
> The 10% gain is IMHO coming from the depth first linking, the transfer is
> made in one go and no extra descriptors are fetched from memory. You can try
> the same with usb-uhci by changing the define USE_BULK_DEPTH_FIRST to 1.
Right: both uhci and usb-uh
On Thursday, 3. May 2001 17:39, Martin Diehl wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > - current state should be set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE for each loop
> > > traversing. schedule() always returns RUNNABLE, so we would only
> > > sleep once.
> >
> > How could the condition be tr
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 05:37:09PM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote:
<...>
> > spin_lock_irqsave, so status might be outdated (i.e. all its TD's
> > already inactive at this point). So we end up connecting the new QH's TD
> > to a lltd->link, which is now out-of-reach for the HC?
>
> just proved: exactl
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Thinking more about it, I am not sure whether simply returning to user space
> with pending signals is valid. Pending signals do _not_ imply that the urb
> was not processed. IMHO you have to unlink the urb and check the result.
> If you were early enou
On Thu, May 03, 2001, Martin Diehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyway - chances are the observation that uhci_append_queued_urb() makes
> > significant contribution to the problem might be helpful. Probably the
> > eurb which was determined much earlier with status==EINPROGRESS might be
> > rac
Hi everyone.
I have here a patch against usbvideo (as found on the linux-usb cvs
repository) for webcamgo.
I would like someone having a Webcam Go camera to test this patch and see if
it generates any data when making a
cat /dev/video0 > /tmp/videodata
I have not implemented the routines nee
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Stefan Nilsen wrote:
> I have here a patch against usbvideo (as found on the linux-usb cvs
> repository) for webcamgo.
Do you want to put it into CVS at SF? Do you have developer's access?
I don't think so, you are not listed there.
> I would like someone having a Webcam Go
--- linux-2.4.4/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c Fri Apr 27 15:13:07 2001
+++ linux-2.4.4-niph/drivers/usb/usb-uhci.c Thu May 3 19:30:05 2001
@@ -2918,8 +2918,9 @@
if (request_irq (irq, uhci_interrupt, SA_SHIRQ, MODNAME, s)) {
err("request_irq %d failed!",irq);
-
On Thursday, 3. May 2001 18:37, you wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2001, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Thinking more about it, I am not sure whether simply returning to user
> > space with pending signals is valid. Pending signals do _not_ imply that
> > the urb was not processed. IMHO you have to unlink the
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: HP 7400c info / Minolta Scan Dual II
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:16:38 EDT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 5/3/2001 4:52:31 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Our disagreement seems to be rather in the type
Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded Message --
> Subject: Re: HP 7400c info / Minolta Scan Dual II
> Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:16:38 EDT
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> In a message dated 5/3/2001 4:52:31 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> writes:
> > Our di
23 matches
Mail list logo
