On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > Considering that only a small number of devices are unable to handle
> > write-protect detection (I've seen reports for no more than two), maybe we
> > should just make it into another unusual_devs flag? That way there's
> > nothing to configure either
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:49:42AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Below is a patch for 2.6.11-rc2 that makes write-protect detection into a
> > > module parameter. Matt Dharm has consider
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Below is a patch for 2.6.11-rc2 that makes write-protect detection into a
> > module parameter. Matt Dharm has considered doing this in the past; I
> > don't remember if he came to a final
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:56:05AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> Now there's a proposal to make this be a module parameter rather than a
> config option, so that it can be changed on-the-fly via sysfs without
> having to rebuild usb-storage.
That's a good thing.
> The bad aspect of doing this is
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:56:05AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Basically the situation is this: There's a config option for usb-storage
USB_STORAGE_RW_DETECT - a bad idea - it must not be necessary to recompile
the kernel (or at least usb-storage) when encountering a bad device.
Many users get t
Greg:
Have you followed this thread? We would like your advice.
Basically the situation is this: There's a config option for usb-storage
to select whether or not the driver should allow checking for
write-protection on new devices. The majority of devices support this
check with no difficul
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 04:49:46PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> > > > Is there a place where we can keep all that useful descriptive text? I
> > > > really don't want to throw it away, just to be bombarded by "what's this
> > > > parameter for" questions
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > Is there a place where we can keep all that useful descriptive text? I
> > > really don't want to throw it away, just to be bombarded by "what's this
> > > parameter for" questions...
> >
> > It can go into a comment, but that wouldn't help very muc
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:38:30PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Below is a patch for 2.6.11-rc2 that makes write-protect detection into a
> > > module parameter. Matt Dharm has consider
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Below is a patch for 2.6.11-rc2 that makes write-protect detection into a
> > module parameter. Matt Dharm has considered doing this in the past; I
> > don't remember if he came to a final
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Below is a patch for 2.6.11-rc2 that makes write-protect detection into a
> module parameter. Matt Dharm has considered doing this in the past; I
> don't remember if he came to a final decision.
Is there a place where we can keep all
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Olaf Hering wrote:
> I got an USB stick with write protection switch, writing to it did
> not work at all. I was told "if the blue LED goes on during plugin,
> no trouble. But if it remains off, writing gives io errors".
> Even reading did not work, like md5sum /mnt/$file gave
On Tue, Feb 01, Olaf Hering wrote:
> CONFIG_USB_STORAGE_RW_DETECT since a while, we have it enabled.
I just checked, USB_STORAGE_RW_DETECT appears only once in the source.
Cant this be made a module option for usb-storage?
So it can be switched on or off at runtime via sysfs.
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
