Iain MacDonnell wrote:
> Andreas Jellinghaus wrote on 10/25/06 03:30 PM:
>> Bob Dunlop wrote:
>>> If you're scripting what's wrong with "sleep 0.1" ?
>>
>> ouch. stupid me, didn't know sleep would accept that.
>> works perfectly, thanks!
>
> I don't think that's portable, but maybe that doesn't ma
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote on 10/25/06 03:30 PM:
Bob Dunlop wrote:
If you're scripting what's wrong with "sleep 0.1" ?
ouch. stupid me, didn't know sleep would accept that.
works perfectly, thanks!
I don't think that's portable, but maybe that doesn't matter to you...
~Iain
__
Bob Dunlop wrote:
If you're scripting what's wrong with "sleep 0.1" ?
ouch. stupid me, didn't know sleep would accept that.
works perfectly, thanks!
Andreas
___
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project
On 25/10/06, Bob Dunlop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd assumed from context that a programming level solution was
requested. If you're scripting what's wrong with "sleep 0.1" ?
The sleep command has accepted floating point numbers for some
time now.
Good suggestion. My "man sleep" says:
" Un
On Wed, Oct 25 at 01:48, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
> These are all C function calls that can't easily be accessed from
> shell scripts. Possibly through perl or python, but that's not very
> neat. Neither is including a separate binary for it. :\
I'd assumed from context that a programming level solut
Peter Stuge wrote:
These are all C function calls that can't easily be accessed from
shell scripts. Possibly through perl or python, but that's not very
neat. Neither is including a separate binary for it. :\
Yes, thanks everyone for your comments. But I was more looking for a
ready tool to use
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:37:42AM +0100, Bob Dunlop wrote:
> Well this one I can answer. A simple milli-second sleep routine:
[..snip C code..]
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 09:24:38AM -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> >sleep 1 as it is the easiest solution. (100ms would
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 24 at 07:18, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> not only sysfs. the files /proc/bus/usb/* and /dev/bus/usb/* might not
> exist either. it is those I worry about at that stage, so I added the
> sleep 1 as it is the easiest solution. (100ms would be fine too, but I
> know no tool to do sub
