From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbgPK-0004DB-93 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:51:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KbgPI-0004BS-Pu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:51:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56728 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KbgPI-0004BK-Mm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:51:44 -0400 Received: from [67.18.187.6] (port=54061 helo=tjworld.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KbgPI-0002K5-Ej for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:51:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Add USB sys file-system support (v2) From: TJ In-Reply-To: <48C1346F.3000405@windriver.com> References: <1220571341.2638.6.camel@hephaestion> <1220580385.2638.15.camel@hephaestion> <48C1346F.3000405@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:51:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1220640699.5470.15.camel@hephaestion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jason Wessel Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 08:30 -0500, Jason Wessel wrote: > I tried out the patch because it looked reasonably interesting on ubuntu > 7.10 64bit, and looked like a nice way to attach a local USB device, but > it did not quite work. What version of kvm, or what was the commit HEAD hash? What does the patch report as the method of access to the USB file-system? The first time usb_host_scan() is called it reports its attempts to find a suitable access method. Does the same device work without the patch? The device is a USB-to-serial converter? Is there a host process attached to it? ( USB device raw access requires the host to release the device or you'll get all kinds of problems and potential data corruption if it is a block device). The location of the error you report is outside the scope of the patch itself. The patch is only responsible for determining the available devices and listing them. The issue you're experiencing could be related to the recent changes to USB support introduced by Max.