On 2012.08.10 05:10, Orin Eman wrote:
> I'd do something like the following:
>
> #include
> #if defined(WIN32) && !defined(PATH_MAX)
> #define PATH_MAX (MAX_PATH+1)
> #endif
>
> and use PATH_MAX like you suggested.
I'll try to do that.
Note however that there's going to be a change of plan with
On 2012.08.10 08:53, sebasti...@gmx-topmail.de wrote:
> Some weeks ago, at the very beginning of our
> investigation, I had set the LIBUSB_DEBUG variable to 3 on the production
> machines, but it had no impact on the error logging.
This would indicate that the error you got on test is different fr
Hi David,
On 2012.08.11 00:18, David Grant wrote:
> We may start testing very soon at my work (Teradici).
Great. Please let us know how it goes.
> What should we expect in terms of mass storage support? Were
> you able to transfer files or just have the device show up in device
> manager or in W
On 2012.08.11 01:03, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I guess you already have the following in mind?
>
> http://libusb.org/wiki/FAQ#CanIuselibusbtoopenafileonaUSBstoragedevice
Peter,
As you should be awfully aware, you are replying in the libusbx mailing
list, where, as much as you may wish the contrary, l
Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:
> I at least need to send 2 bytes to the FPGA to receive back a NAK
> in case of a bad 2 first bytes. In case of a proper trame this will
> send a ACK or data packet.
You can simplify your protocol significantly since USB transfers,
aside from isochronous, are a reliabl
David Grant wrote:
> mass storage support?
I guess you already have the following in mind?
http://libusb.org/wiki/FAQ#CanIuselibusbtoopenafileonaUSBstoragedevice
//Peter
--
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive li
>
> PS: I have now tested the filter driver against a mass storage device
> (i.e. keeping Windows default mass storage driver) and it seems to
> produce the expected results.
>
>
Thanks Pete for the update. We may start testing very soon at my work
(Teradici). What should we expect in terms of mass
Hi Tim,
Sorry for the delay in the replay was on something else ;)
On 2012-07-24, at 12:41 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Kevyn-Alexandre Paré wrote:
>> Here's the code and output of my test. I'm trying to understand what's going
>> wrong! I mean that I'm expecting the callback function "cb_xfr" from
> On 2012.08.09 22:25, Pete Batard wrote:
> OK, first thing I notice is that the timerfd report is output as a
> warning rather than debug, so if your test machine is behaving the same
> way as your other server, it means that you have silenced warnings
> there, which I'd strongly recommend against
