On Wednesday 14 September 2005 19:45, Timothy Thelin wrote: > I was curious about the reasoning behind this decision and how to fix an > issue that came up because of it. > ... > (1) Is easy to do, but is it going to cause other issues? I'd imagine any > *usb storage* device that reports scsi0 really implements the scsi3 form of > the commands that it happens to support. > (2) Is more invasive, but is probably more of a correct solution. This > will require a larger effort involving multiple groups coordinating the > efforts.
I can't really comment on the rest of your mail, even though the points seem well thought-out, but I would like to offer just a single comment: Why would a usb-storage device ever report itself as scsi0 if it actually supports scsi3? Is it because the USB/ATA bridge spec doesn't support asking the device it self, so the usb-subsystem just makes an (un? ;)-educated guess? Or is it because it is possible, but the devices can't be trusted to tell the truth? -- Regards, Christian Iversen ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
