On Tuesday 17 June 2003 09:39, ope wrote:
> I have also noticed another thing that is worth
> mentioning. At one point when the xsane seemed to be
> stuck I tried unplugging the scanner from the USB
> port. I was expecting xsane to fail and close down.
> What actually did happen was that the com
Nakal wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 00:16, abel deuring wrote:
>
>
>>What I meant, was a combination of the log output of the Sane SCVSI
>>library and of the Microtek backend ;)
>
>
> This is the output of:
> SANE_DEBUG_MICROTEK=255 SANE_SCSICMD_TIMEOUT=180
> SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_SCSI=128 scani
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:20:27PM +0100, Major A wrote:
> Hope you don't mind me also sending a copy to the SANE list.
>
> > often I get this strange error : scanner.c blah funky result:-75
> > blah. I have been getting this for a while and once it happens,
Error 75 is EOVERFLOW. That's usu
> I'll try to summarize the problem (copied from a mail to
> linux-usb-users):
>
> | We want to read 42448 bytes (e.g. two scan lines). The buffer size is
> | 32768 so that's the maximum we can do in one turn. The scanner returns
> | only 21224 bytes (probably one scan line). So far that's ok.
> |
Dmitri,
Hope you don't mind me also sending a copy to the SANE list.
> often I get this strange error : scanner.c blah funky result:-75
> blah. I have been getting this for a while and once it happens,
OK, that sounds familiar, but I still don't know a solution to it. The
tricky bit about USB is
--Boundary-00=_ELz7+hd1IAGKfsJ
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 00:16, abel deuring wrote:
> What I meant, was a combination of the log output of the Sane SCVSI
> library and of the Microtek backen
What I see in messages are a lot of messages saying:
kernel: usb_control/bulk_msg: timeout
last message repeated 2 times
last message repeated 3 times
...
and after 10 minutes or so I will see:
kernel: scanner.c: read_scanner(0): excessive NAK's
received
--- Oliver Rauch wrote:
> On Tuesday 17
Sorry for taking so long to respond...
It definately works better (or worse) if I adjust the
scan resolution. I set resolution set to 100 and did
not have any problems. I normally expect to run into
problems after about 2-3 scans and never get more than
5 scans without problems. After adjusting
Nakal wrote:
> On Monday 16 June 2003 21:16, abel deuring wrote:
>
>
>>The first error occurs immediately after a "read", and this at least
>>does not contradict my suspicions about the timeout problems. But we
>>could get a better clue, if you add a "SANE_DEBUG_MICROTEK=255". The
>>DLL debug out
