rene at exactcode.de
Wed Jul 16 12:14:52 UTC 2008
Lev A. Melnikovsky wrote:
> ...nice to hear from you
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 at 3:08pm, Ren? Rebe wrote:
> RR> The user should not be able to mess the timeouts from the environment.
> Actually the user is always able to do _anything_ from the
> And we do already have SANE_SCSICMD_TIMEOUT and SANE_NET_TIMEOUT, don't
> RR> The backends should know precisely how long a response takes,
> RR> especially to return to the user if the scanner got "stuck".
> RR> If one device requires it's own timeouts then go fix the backend to set it.
> Well, I don't feel myself competent enough to suggest specific timeouts
> for a few scanner models. My particular unit works much better after I
> change libusb_timeout=120*1000. I have no idea if this is going to help
> others. I'll be completely satisfied if someone provides a general
> solution which just works.
Sure the use can, with an own library implementation, Qemu, whatever.
those is like poking your PCI registers with a hex editor.
Go fix the SANE backend to set the timeout to 120* whatever for just your
Joe Ubuntu users do not want to google to death how to get the scanner
reliably by setting a environment variable, anyway.
René Rebe - ExactCODE GmbH - Europe, Germany, Berlin
http://exactcode.de | http://t2-project.org | http://rene.rebe.name
More information about the sane-devel