On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 12:40:33PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Aurelien Jarno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I would prefer I change in SANE instead of libusb, so that other > > applications using libusb won't suffer to performance losses. > > I strongly disagree. I know what I'm losing with libsane as it is > today, I don't know what I'm going to lose with this hackish patch.
Ok, so let's go with a modified version of libusb. For the release managers, I have uploaded a fixed version of libusb to testing-proposed-updates. Here are the changes: diff -u libusb-0.1.10a/linux.c libusb-0.1.10a/linux.c --- libusb-0.1.10a/linux.c +++ libusb-0.1.10a/linux.c @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ * Linux usbfs has a limit of 16KB for the URB interface. We use this now * to get better performance for USB 2.0 devices. */ -#define MAX_READ_WRITE (16 * 1024) +#define MAX_READ_WRITE (4 * 1024) int usb_control_msg(usb_dev_handle *dev, int requesttype, int request, int value, int index, char *bytes, int size, int timeout) > > And wrt performances, <insert comment about Gentoo here> ;) My tests show me an improvement of 7% with some USB 1.1 devices and 19% for some USB 2.0 devices. I don't found that insignificant. Bye, Aurelien -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]