On 10.04.2008, at 21:33, stef wrote: > Le Wednesday 09 April 2008 21:38:26, vous avez ?crit : >> >> You are still just arguing around the dancing cow here. >> >> With a potentially new sane_end whatever function you still would >> have >> to >> keep track where the head is. A frontend may still read less data >> and in >> any case you would need to know where the head is to move it that >> specific way backwards in such a "CPU-less" "doing every step by >> the host" device. >> >> I can still do not see where another function call to signal a >> scan_end >> would help you. > > A frontend that reads less data than it required would call > sane_cancel(). > While I imagine some cases where it may need to do such, frontends > will > usually get what they asked for, and call sane_end(). > It should also be noted that a frontend that don't call it would > still work.
And when a frontend for a valid or buggy reason reads less than the backend thinks it shoudl read and calls _end the head will be crashed into the scanner case??? -- Ren? Rebe - ExactCODE GmbH - Europe, Germany, Berlin http://exactcode.de | http://t2-project.org | http://rene.rebe.name