On Monday 15 September 2008, Scott Long wrote:
> Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please find a link to my implementation. Panics when unplugging USB Mass
> > Storage Devices is now a thing of the past, I hope. Any comments ?
> >
> > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=149821
> >
> > -
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
Please find a link to my implementation. Panics when unplugging USB Mass
Storage Devices is now a thing of the past, I hope. Any comments ?
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=149821
--HPS
So you're sticking with a SIM per umass target, and adding a global
Hi,
Please find a link to my implementation. Panics when unplugging USB Mass
Storage Devices is now a thing of the past, I hope. Any comments ?
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=149821
--HPS
___
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.f
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:09:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Scott Long wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >>Yes. A SIM will serialize all operations, and the most logical place
> >>for that is the computer <-> usb interface, which is the host
> >>controller. So having o
Scott Long wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Scott Long wrote:
: > This is close to How Things Should Be. Each umass target having
its own
: > SIM and bus is indeed wrong, but I'm not sure if
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Scott Long wrote:
: > This is close to How Things Should Be. Each umass target having its own
: > SIM and bus is indeed wrong, but I'm not sure if it's correct for all
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Scott Long wrote:
: > This is close to How Things Should Be. Each umass target having its own
: > SIM and bus is indeed wrong, but I'm not sure if it's correct for all
: > USB controllers and buses to be under a s
Scott Long wrote:
This is close to How Things Should Be. Each umass target having its own
SIM and bus is indeed wrong, but I'm not sure if it's correct for all
USB controllers and buses to be under a single SIM. What would be the
most correct is for each physical USB controller/bus instance to
This is close to How Things Should Be. Each umass target having its own
SIM and bus is indeed wrong, but I'm not sure if it's correct for all
USB controllers and buses to be under a single SIM. What would be the
most correct is for each physical USB controller/bus instance to have
its own SIM in
On Thursday 11 September 2008, Volker wrote:
> On 09/11/08 22:13, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Volker wrote:
> >> On 09/11/08 10:13, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >>> On Monday 25 August 2008, Volker wrote:
> Anyway, I've already had those crashes even with the "new" usb stack
> (but it does
Hi Volker,
Could you try the following. Add an extra check for "UGEN_CLOSING" to the code
statement in ugen.c in the function ugenclose():
if ((!(sce->state & UGEN_CLOSING)) && (sce->state & (UGEN_OPEN_DEV |
UGEN_OPEN_IN | UGEN_OPEN_OUT))
The ugenclose() is called from both "detach()" and
On Thursday 11 September 2008 02:44:42 pm Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would anyone object if I make one non-Giant locked CAM bus for all USB2
> devices? Something like:
Ask scottl@, I think he had mentioned having one bus for all USB devices
before.
> static void
> umass_create_cam_b
On 09/11/08 22:13, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Volker wrote:
>> On 09/11/08 10:13, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>> On Monday 25 August 2008, Volker wrote:
Anyway, I've already had those crashes even with the "new" usb stack
(but it doesn't happen everytime - YMMV).
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I also
Volker wrote:
On 09/11/08 10:13, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Monday 25 August 2008, Volker wrote:
Anyway, I've already had those crashes even with the "new" usb stack
(but it doesn't happen everytime - YMMV).
Hi,
I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB device
On 09/11/08 10:13, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 25 August 2008, Volker wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, I've already had those crashes even with the "new" usb stack
>> (but it doesn't happen everytime - YMMV).
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB dev
Hi,
Would anyone object if I make one non-Giant locked CAM bus for all USB2
devices? Something like:
static void
umass_create_cam_bus_sysinit()
{
devq = cam_simq_alloc(1 /* maximum openings */ );
if (devq == NULL) {
return (ENOMEM);
}
umass_global_
Rink Springer wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:13:22AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB device
is un-plugged too early. The backtraces I've got so far does not indicate a
USB problem, though
That is correct, this is
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rink Springer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:13:22AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
: > I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB
device
: > is un-plugged too early. The backtraces I've got so fa
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:13:22AM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB device
> is un-plugged too early. The backtraces I've got so far does not indicate a
> USB problem, though
That is correct, this is a bug in CAM. Mor
On Monday 25 August 2008, Volker wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, I've already had those crashes even with the "new" usb stack
> (but it doesn't happen everytime - YMMV).
>
Hi,
I also see crashes with my new stuff and the umass driver when the USB device
is un-plugged too early. The backtraces I've got so f
On 08/24/08 06:57, Antony Mawer wrote:
> On 23/08/2008 8:08 PM, Volker wrote:
>> On 12/23/-58 20:59, Antony Mawer wrote:
>>> M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Antony Mawer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Warner Losh wrote:
: > From: Bakul Shah <[EMA
21 matches
Mail list logo
