search for: 214b

...t; port = auto > > vendorid = 0463 > > productid = ffff > > pollonly > > > > I have highlighted the errors while launching the driver: > > > > 0.039057 [D2] Checking device 4 of 10 (214B/7250) > > 0.039099 [D1] Failed to open device (214B/7250), skipping: > Access denied (insufficient permissions) > > 0.039109 [D2] Checking device 5 of 10 (0463/FFFF) > > 0.956144 [D1] nut_libusb_open get iManufacturer failed, > retrying... &gt...

...the configuration. driver : usbhid-ups port = auto vendorid = 0463 productid = ffff pollonly I have highlighted the errors while launching the driver: 0.039057 [D2] Checking device 4 of 10 (214B/7250) 0.039099 [D1] Failed to open device (214B/7250), skipping: Access denied (insufficient permissions) 0.039109 [D2] Checking device 5 of 10 (0463/FFFF) 0.956144 [D1] nut_libusb_open get iManufacturer failed, retrying... 0.956518 [D1] nut_libusb_ope...

...vendorid = 0463 >> >> productid = ffff >> >> pollonly >> >> >> >> I have highlighted the errors while launching the driver: >> >> >> >> 0.039057 [D2] Checking device 4 of 10 (214B/7250) >> >> 0.039099 [D1] Failed to open device (214B/7250), skipping: >> Access denied (insufficient permissions) >> >> 0.039109 [D2] Checking device 5 of 10 (0463/FFFF) >> >> 0.956144 [D1] nut_libusb_open get iManufacturer...

The "unknown" fields mean the driver did not get that piece of information from libusb. In case of Manufacturer/Product which are unknown in the later post, but known in the first, I suppose you had another driver running, or the kernel still owned it (udev misbehavior, not handing it off after reconnections, etc.) and so exclusive access was not given to the new (currently reporting)

...nt directory of each file. ext[23]_rename fail to update st_[cm]time of the target directory if the target file already existed. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab at suse.de SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstra?e 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."

On 2009-01-23 20:27, Török Edwin wrote: >>> >>> >> i'd not mind it at all if the kernel could be built with other open-source >> compilers too. >> >> Now in this case the patch you suggest might end up hurting the end result >> so it's not an unconditional 'yes'. But ... how much it actually matters >> depends on