>P.S.: Instead of patching the driver, you should get an equivalent >result by increasing the "delay_use=" module parameter for usb-storage >from its default value of 5 seconds up to 15 seconds. Have you tried >this? Tried just now. It works fine, with no patch applied, when delay_use is set equal to 10 (or higher than that). Out of curiosity... while they lead to an equivalent result, if I guessed this correctly (not really sure about how wait_event_freezable_timeout works), the difference between delay_use and getmaxlun timeout lies in the fact that delay_use always forces a wait for X seconds (even when un-needed), while the timeout obviously is not forcefully reached if getmaxlun succeeds. Is that correct? If that is correct, I guess it would be better to raise the getmaxlun timeout. If, on the other hand, they both can return before the timeout is reached, then it doesn't matter which one is raised. We could also add a "delay" field in the us_data structure and allow unusual devs to customize that in their init function, thus raising delay_use (or getmaxlun timeout, delay could act on any of the two) only when it's known to be required for a certain device. Looking at the code a bit, I think I can do something like that. Or we could do nothing at all :) What do you think it could be the best solution? Regards, Giacomo Lozito -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
