[sane-devel] Oops . . here's the logs (xsane-win32/saned + epson 1650 prob)

[Keith Clayton]

Finally had some time to get back on this . . kid's birthday, end of
school year, etc.

Upgraded to xsane0.94 on the windows box and problems scanning multiple
images are gone.  My best guess is that the mismatch of sane versions
between 1.0.14 on the scanners host machine and the sane version included
with xsane-0.90 were the problem.

Back when I upgraded my backends to 1.0.14, I upgraded xsane on the linux
box to 0.94 and looked for an upgrade to xsane-win32 but blew it and
didn't see one available.

Sorry for that, thanks to Oliver for pointing out that I'd blown it :-)
and many thanks to Henning for showing me the many troubleshooting steps I
could take.

Cheers,
Keith

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Oliver Rauch wrote:

> Am Don, 2004-06-10 um 17.32 schrieb Keith Clayton:
> > No, still running 0.90 on the windows box.  I upgraded to 0.94 on the
> > linux box and looked for windows binaries at the same time.  Didn't see
> > them.  Did I miss it?
> >
>
> Looks like it.
> Oliver
>
> > K
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> >
> > > For windows you can not enable a debug output - at least I do not know
> > > a way with the published binaries because they are compiled as GUI.
> > >
> > > BTW. Did you ever test xsane-0.94-win32?
> > >
> > > Oliver
> > >
> > > Am Don, 2004-06-10 um 16.09 schrieb Keith Clayton:
> > > > What sort of steps are availble for me to take debugging-wise on the
> > > > windows end?
> > > >
> > > > If xsane is started from the command prompt, are there any swithces
> > > > available to generate debugging output at the command prompt?
> > > >
> > > > K
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 09:18:11PM -0700, Keith Clayton wrote:
> > > > > > Hate when I do that . . here's the xsane logs described in my previous
> > > > > > email
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, let's look at the second log. The preview scan looks ok (but I
> > > > > don't know the details of the plustek backend). The real scan also
> > > > > starts fine and then we see this:
> > > > >
> > > > > [plustek] sane_read - read 3750 bytes
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: read 3750 bytes from scanner
> > > > > [plustek] usb_ScanReadImage() done, result: 0
> > > > > [plustek] usb_ReadData()
> > > > > [plustek] usb_ScanReadImage(3760)
> > > > > [plustek] usb_ScanReadImage() done, result: 0
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: trying to write 3754 bytes to client
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: wrote 3754 bytes to client
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: trying to read 1521 bytes from scanner
> > > > > [plustek] sane_read - read 1521 bytes
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: read 1521 bytes from scanner
> > > > >
> > > > > Now these 1521 bytes should be sent to the frontend...
> > > > >
> > > > > [saned] do_scan: processing RPC request on fd 4
> > > > > [saned] process_request: waiting for request
> > > > > [saned] process_request: bad status 22
> > > > >
> > > > > saned thinks something has been sent to it by the control (not data)
> > > > > connection. But when trying to decode what was sent it gets an error
> > > > > when reading the first word. 22 is "invalid argument". That means that
> > > > > no data could be read. Maybe xsane has crashed on the clent side
> > > > > meanwhile?
> > > > >
> > > > > Usually during the scan nothing is sent to the control file descriptor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway. As sane_cancel isn't called the reader_process in the plustek
> > > > > backend isn't killed and the plustek backend gets confused.
> > > > >
> > > > > So my impression is that the problem is with xsane (or the net
> > > > > frontend on windows) and the scanner lockup is just a consequence.
> > > > > But I don't know why xsane (or the net backend) crashes. So maybe
> > > > > finding out the details here may help- E.g. gdb xsane on the client or
> > > > > enabling debugging for xsane and the net backend and looking at the
> > > > > last few lines before the crash.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the xsane and plustek maintainers can have a look at the
> > > > > logfiles, too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Bye,
> > > > >   Henning
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>