Dr. Ing. Dieter Jurzitza wrote:
> Dear Listmembers,
> obviously I did something wrong when setting SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_SCSI=255 the
> last
> time. However, I said I would retry on January, 7th (back to work :-( )
>
> Please have a look on the attachement. If it tells you something, let me know.
> If not - sigh!
>
> By the way - this is sane 1.08 src-rpm from the SuSE 8.1 distribution,
> compiled[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi.issue: 0x70260008
dev_max(currently)=11 max_active_device=6 (origin 1)
scsi_dma_free_sectors=2192 sg_pool_secs_aval=320 def_reserved_size=32768
>>> device=sg5 scsi1 chan=0 id=2 lun=0 em=0 sg_tablesize=127 excl=1
FD(1): timeout=60000ms bufflen=131072 (res)sgat=4 low_dma=0
cmd_q=1 f_packid=0 k_orphan=0 closed=0
No requests active
[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi.issue: bad write (errno=22) Invalid argument -1
> on Sparc.
>
> Hope you will have an idea how to proceed,
> many thanks for your efforts in advance,
This is an interesting error; it occurs for the very first SCSI command
sent to the scanner:
[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi.issue: 0x70260008
dev_max(currently)=11 max_active_device=6 (origin 1)
scsi_dma_free_sectors=2192 sg_pool_secs_aval=320 def_reserved_size=32768
>>> device=sg5 scsi1 chan=0 id=2 lun=0 em=0 sg_tablesize=127 excl=1
FD(1): timeout=60000ms bufflen=131072 (res)sgat=4 low_dma=0
cmd_q=1 f_packid=0 k_orphan=0 closed=0
No requests active
[sanei_scsi] sanei_scsi.issue: bad write (errno=22) Invalid argument -1
errno 22 is EINVAL; this error is returned by the SG driver for version
3 SG headers, if the header size passed by the caller (i.e.,
sanei_scai.c, functions sanei_scsi_req_enter and issue) in a write() or
read() call does not match the size expected by the SG driver.
You wrote in your first mail that you try to run Sane as a 32 bit
application on a 64 bit machine.
I don't have any serious experience with 64 bit machines -- but since
the size argument in the write() call in sanei_scsi.c/issue is simply
sizeof(Sg_io_hdr), which looks quite correct, I can only guess that the
SG driver expects struct Sg_io_hdr consists 64 of bit pointers, buffer
length parameters etc, while the application provides only 32 bit
parameters.
Can somebody with more experience on possible "32/64 bit problems"
comment on this guess?
Abel
