From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759452Ab2JKVwI (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:52:08 -0400 Received: from smtprelay-b11.telenor.se ([62.127.194.20]:49753 "EHLO smtprelay-b11.telenor.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759414Ab2JKVwD (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:52:03 -0400 X-SENDER-IP: [85.230.29.114] X-LISTENER: [smtp.bredband.net] X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgWfAIQ+d1BV5h1yPGdsb2JhbABEDoo+tAcEfRkBAQEBHxkNJ4IgAQEEATocKAsIAxguFCUKGgEJiAcKuVgUizMvA4UOYAOVbIVyjHE9 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,574,1344204000"; d="scan'208";a="204235969" From: "Henrik Rydberg" Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:54:39 +0200 To: Hans de Goede , Alan Stern , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: REGRESSION: usbdevfs: Use-scatter-gather-lists-for-large-bulk-transfers Message-ID: <20121011215439.GA505@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <20121010203118.GA792@polaris.bitmath.org> <20121010203459.20663.qmail@stuge.se> <20121011054403.GA1680@polaris.bitmath.org> <20121011065033.2168.qmail@stuge.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121011065033.2168.qmail@stuge.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:50:33AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: > Henrik Rydberg wrote: > > > What is the programming cable and software that uses it? > > > > The programmer is impact, using libusbx-1.0.14-1. > > Do you know for a fact that your version calls libusb-1.0? Did you > establish this with e.g. strace? ISE 11.1 impact uses only libusb.so, > ie. libusb-0.1. I modified libusbx during testing, and yes, it is really used. > > The patch is pretty generic, so I am suprised the problem has not > > shown up earlier. > > There are several explanations. There is clearly a problem with Hans' > patch(es) for some cases, but those are perhaps not so common. As it turned out, all cases of large bulk transfers, so I guess 3.6 has not been that widely tested yet. ;-) > I've reviewed Hans' patch that he added to libusbx and which is in > libusbx-1.0.14, but I am not sure that it is correct, which is why > I haven't included it in libusb yet. I looked at it for a while, it does seem correct. Thanks, Henrik