Hi,
I'm running 5.4-STABLE and I'm not able to get my MS USB Wireless mouse
working.
After plugging the mouse I see this in my dmesg:
uhid0: Microsoft Microsoft USB Wireless Mouse, rev 2.00/0.17, addr 2,
iclass 3/1
But there is no ums device. I have "device ums" in kernel.
Is there any patch ava
Ronald Klop wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:38:42 +0200, Michal Vanco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm running 5.4-STABLE and I'm not able to get my MS USB Wireless mouse
>> working.
>> After plugging the mouse I see this in my dme
Hi,
my problem with %subj% continues. Recently I have forced ums to detect
it as mouse but there are still some weird things.
ums0: Microsoft Microsoft USB Wireless Mouse, rev 2.00/0.17, addr 2,
iclass 3/1
ums_attach: bLength=7 bDescriptorType=5 bEndpointAddress=1-in
bmAttributes=3 wMaxPacke
Michal Vanco wrote:
... seems like reported locations X,Y,Z and buttons are wrong.
well ... this works. but i'm not sure for other mices
diff -Nrua usb/ums.c /sys/dev/usb/ums.c
--- usb/ums.c Sun Jan 30 02:00:10 2005
+++ /sys/dev/usb/ums.c Mon Jun 13 16:24:50 2005
@@ -76,6
Hi,
i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after
link on interface goes down. For example:
> netstat -rnf inet | grep bge0
default10.1.14.1 UGS 0 135968 bge0
10.1/17link#1 UC 00 bge0
> route -n monit
On Saturday 18 June 2005 20:48, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Michal Vanco wrote:
> > i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after
> > link on interface goes down. For example:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Should't all routes via bge0 be deleted after link on
On Sunday 19 June 2005 10:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:14:32PM +0200, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> J> Second, you may need a route daemon for this. ospf is a well known
> J> canditate where convergence in case of lost link is a must.
>
> While an OSPF daemon may stop advertis
On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
> Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it
> > switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is.
> >
> > What is opinion of other networkers?
>
> How about also adding a sysctl for setting
