Re: What's the status of sanei-thread?

From: Oliver Rauch (oliver.rauch@rauch-domain.de)
Date: Fri Jul 06 2001 - 09:36:34 PDT

  • Next message: Jose Paulo Moitinho de Almeida: "Re: yet another release"

    Mick Barry wrote:
    >
    > Oliver Rauch wrote:
    >
    > >> What was the original idea behind implementing the second process in
    > >> some of the backends?
    > >
    > >
    > > The idea is to make the data flow between scanner and backend
    > > independant from the data flow between backend and frontend.
    > >
    > > But this also can be done by intelligent scsi command handling
    > > and may be also by good usb command handling.
    > >
    > > Bye
    > > Oliver
    >
    > What about implementing an (optional) wrapper around the backend to make
    > the flow between the f/e and the b/e independant of the flow between
    > scanner and b/e.

    No. That is bad. sane_read of all backends have to be independant
    of the backend <-> scanner data flow.

    May be we should write some sanei_* routines that can be used by
    all backends. As long as the data is transfered via the generic
    scsi functions it should always be possible to initiate a read
    command without having to wait until it is finished. May be
    already this does make sane_read independant (enough) from the
    scanner<->backend data flow. If command queueing is available
    I think we will get better results than with the reader_processes.

    Bye
    Oliver

    -- 
    Homepage:	http://www.rauch-domain.de
    sane-umax:	http://www.rauch-domain.de/sane-umax
    xsane:		http://www.xsane.org
    E-Mail:		mailto:Oliver.Rauch@rauch-domain.de
    

    -- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 09:31:32 PDT