# Re: Microtek E3 won't scan, but II-G okay (SANE-OS/2)

Yuri Dario (mc6530@mclink.it)
Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:51:46 +0200 (CDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Bernd Schroeder: "Re: Microtek ScanMaker IV on Linux-2.2.10 (Redhat 6.0)"
- Previous message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: Possible xsane bug?"
- In reply to: Irv Thomae: "Re: Microtek E3 won't scan, but II-G okay (SANE-OS/2)"
- Next in thread: Tony Peden: "Re: Microtek E3 won't scan, but II-G okay (SANE-OS/2)"

On Sun, 18 Jul 99 16:32:36 -0500, Irv Thomae wrote:

> I'm probably grasping at straws here, but is it conceivable that seemingly
>identical backend code might show different _timing_ characteristics when
>executed under OS/2 (multi-threaded, but lacking fork() ), as opposed to
>running on the same x86 box under Linux?

the microtek backend is not using fork(), so it is not multi-threaded
under OS/2. But it is possible that there are different timing on scsi
commands, because they have to be routed from 4 different I/O levels.

Bye,

Yuri Dario

/*
* member of TeamOS/2 - Italy
* http://www.quasarbbs.com/yuri
*/

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

- Next message: Bernd Schroeder: "Re: Microtek ScanMaker IV on Linux-2.2.10 (Redhat 6.0)"
- Previous message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: Possible xsane bug?"
- In reply to: Irv Thomae: "Re: Microtek E3 won't scan, but II-G okay (SANE-OS/2)"
- Next in thread: Tony Peden: "Re: Microtek E3 won't scan, but II-G okay (SANE-OS/2)"