Hi,
Alan Stern writes:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> > I should have noticed this before. If something goes wrong with the
>> > 2048-sector limit, this doesn't permit the user to override. Shouldn't
>> > the test for USB_SPEED_SUPER go after the other FL_MAX_SECTORS tests?
On Tue, 12 Apr 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > I should have noticed this before. If something goes wrong with the
> > 2048-sector limit, this doesn't permit the user to override. Shouldn't
> > the test for USB_SPEED_SUPER go after the other FL_MAX_SECTORS tests?
>
> you mean that a USB3 device
Alan Stern writes:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
>> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>>
>> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
>> sectors really rendered negligible speed
>> improvements, so we
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>
> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
> sectors really rendered negligible speed
> improvements, so we will simply ignore
> that. T
