Hi,
Alan Stern writes:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Oliver Neukum writes:
>> > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:26 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> >> This doesn't need to be stored as one of the usb-storage flags. And
>> >> since we are close to running out of flag bits (on 32
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Oliver Neukum writes:
> > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:26 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> This doesn't need to be stored as one of the usb-storage flags. And
> >> since we are close to running out of flag bits (on 32-bit
> >> architectures), it would
Hi,
Oliver Neukum writes:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:26 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>> This doesn't need to be stored as one of the usb-storage flags. And
>> since we are close to running out of flag bits (on 32-bit
>> architectures), it would be better not to use one of them for this.
>
> Do we w
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:26 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > This doesn't need to be stored as one of the usb-storage flags. And
> > since we are close to running out of flag bits (on 32-bit
> > architectures), it would be better not to use one of them for t
On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 16:26 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> This doesn't need to be stored as one of the usb-storage flags. And
> since we are close to running out of flag bits (on 32-bit
> architectures), it would be better not to use one of them for this.
Do we want the opposite flag? 25% for known
Hi,
Alan Stern writes:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
>> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
>> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>>
>> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
>> sectors really rendered negligible speed
>> improvements,
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>
> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
> sectors really rendered negligible speed
> improvements, so we will simply ignore
> that. Tr
Hi,
Greg KH writes:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:48:32PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
>> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>>
>> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
>> sectors really rendered negligible speed
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:48:32PM -0600, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
> less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
>
> We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
> sectors really rendered negligible speed
> improvements, so we will sim
USB3 devices, because they are much newer, have much
less chance of having issues with larger transfers.
We still keep a limit because anything above 2048
sectors really rendered negligible speed
improvements, so we will simply ignore
that. Transferring 1MiB should already give us
pretty good perf
10 matches
Mail list logo
