[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
[martin%duskware.de@localhost: Re: [pullup-5 #1123] (...)] / umass quirk for PR 42225
so, maybe I was too hasty accepting the proposed workaround for those
broken devices into the tree.
But how should that be handled? Just accept *any* device that claims
zero bytes were transferred, but transferred everything? How would
we know the difference to a device that really didn't transfer
anything this time?
----- Forwarded message from Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:30:06 +0100
From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
To: Ignatios Souvatzis <is%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: [pullup-5 #1123] [is%netbsd.org@localhost: CVS commit:
src/sys/dev/usb] umass quirk for PR 42225
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:28:16PM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> please pull this up; this lets us read/write data from/to (at least
> one) broken usb-ata-bridge. Implemented as a Quirk, so more broken
> devices can be added when necessary (I understand there are several
> handled in a similar way in Linux).
This should not be a quirk, please stall untill this has been properly
Check the usb quirks history...
----- End forwarded message -----
Main Index |
Thread Index |