Hi,
> (from dmesg)
> usb 3-2: device not accepting address 4, error -110
> usb 3-2: new full speed USB device using ohci_hcd and address 5
> cdrom: open failed.
> usb 3-2: device descriptor read/64, error -110
> cdrom: open failed.
Looks like Peter lost his bet. :-)
Yay! I hereby claim my unused Windows licences for sticking over noisy
bullfrog's mouths! ;-p
> What is error -110?
It is a high level timeout. The device accepted the control transfer,
but did not send a reply over some significant amount of time (a few
seconds). This means that the lower level sequencer in the device
continues to operate.
Thanks. I thought it may have been something like that having seen it on
something else.
The answer is to deploy a variety of measures with strict regression
testing (which means SLOW and GRADUAL deployment): caching of descriptor
strings by kernel so "cat /proc/bus/usb/devices" does not hit devices,
less aggressive polling by HAL and switchover to non-polled, event
driven modes in HAL, refactoring and correct delays of enumeration.
Is that going to happen before FC4 hits paydirt?
All the while this goes on, developers need bug reports, but they do
not
need things like "Any signs of usb_storage being fixed?"
Yeah. Really sorry about that - I was very drunk when I posted that.
Bug reports must never include words "latest" and
"current". If I see
them, I ignore the report (Why? Because it takes hot iron to extract
info and then users just feel wronged anyway, so why bother).
Some of us like the hot poker treatment!!!!
You can
use word "rawhide", but it's redundant. Include actual output of
uname -a, rpm -q, or cat /proc/version.
Do you want me to file this problem into bugzilla and if so, what
component does it need filing under?
TTFN
Paul
--
"It is often said that something cannot be libel if it is the truth.
This has had to be amended to 'something cannot be libel if it is the
truth or if the bank balance says otherwise'" - US Today