On Thursday 03 March 2005 12:21, Jan De Luyck wrote: > On Thursday 03 March 2005 08:05, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > > Jan De Luyck wrote: > > > I'm sorry to have to come back on this, but further use of my USB disk > > > has shown that a higher timeout is needed to maintain usability. It > > > seems a higher timeout is needed depending on how far you go in the > > > disk, as I started using the entire disk a timeout of 130msecs is > > > needed instead of 110. > > > > Actually, I'm guessing it should be 125, and I'll submit a patch to > > change it. You sure 130 is required? 125usec, as David B pointed out to > > me in private email when I submitted a patch modifying some code around > > this delay, 125usec is a "microframe", which he suspects it is wanting, > > and I'm inclined to agree. > > I have no idea, as I increased it with 10ms at a time. I'll change this and > test it with 125ms. I'll get back to you on this in a few days.
As with my habits of long delayed answers, 125ms seems to work without problems. Jan -- "It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -- Walt Disney ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
