On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:29:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Other than this, I'm fine with the code ... you can add the acked by
from me when we resolve the above question.
Okay. It's true that this issue is only tangentially related to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #18 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:29:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Other than this, I'm fine with the code ... you can add the acked by
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
James, can you explain how the INQUIRY command in scsi_probe_lun()
managed to work back in the days when multi-lun SCSI-2 devices were
common? sdev-scsi_level doesn't get set when sdev is allocated, so it
initially contains 0, so the LUN
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
James, can you explain how the INQUIRY command in scsi_probe_lun()
managed to work back in the days when multi-lun SCSI-2 devices were
common? sdev-scsi_level doesn't get set when sdev is
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #19 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
James, can you explain how the INQUIRY command in scsi_probe_lun()
managed to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #20 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
James, can you explain how the
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 17:19 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 10:44 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
James, can you explain how the INQUIRY command in scsi_probe_lun()
managed to work
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:29:32PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Other than this, I'm fine with the code ... you can add the acked by
from me when we resolve the above question.
Okay. It's true that this issue is only tangentially related to the
main point of the patch. It could be removed
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:41PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Alan Okay, here's a patch that implements the suggestion, except that I
Alan put the flag in the Scsi_Host structure instead of the template.
Alan This was to minimize the
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Good idea. An enhanced patch is below. If I can get a Tested-By: from
Tiziano and one or two Acked-By: responses, I'll submit this for the
current and stable kernels.
Sending the initial INQUIRY command to LUNs larger than 0
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #15 from Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com ---
Alan == Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu writes:
Alan Sending the initial INQUIRY command to LUNs larger than 0 involves
Alan a chicken-and-egg problem -- we don't know
Alan == Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu writes:
Alan Sending the initial INQUIRY command to LUNs larger than 0 involves
Alan a chicken-and-egg problem -- we don't know whether to fill in the
Alan LUN bits in the command until we know the SCSI level, and we don't
Alan know the SCSI level
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #16 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Good idea. An enhanced patch is below. If I can get a Tested-By: from
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Good idea. An enhanced patch is below. If I can get a Tested-By: from
Tiziano and one or two Acked-By: responses, I'll submit this for the
current and stable kernels.
Sending
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 10:53 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:41PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Alan Okay, here's a patch that implements the suggestion, except that I
Alan put the flag in the Scsi_Host structure
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 10:53 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Sending the initial INQUIRY command to LUNs larger than 0 involves a
chicken-and-egg problem -- we don't know whether to fill in the LUN
bits in the command until we know the SCSI level, and
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #17 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 10:53 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
Sending the initial INQUIRY command to LUNs larger than 0 involves a
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:41:02AM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Perhaps we could add another bit flag in struct
scsi_host_template such as:
unsigned int transport_says_dont_scsi2_lun_cmd:1;
then drivers/usb/storage/scsiglue.c could set that
bit in its usb_stor_host_template and
On 14-08-20 03:15 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:58:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
Why was this
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #11 from d gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com ---
On 14-08-20 03:15 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:58:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:41:02AM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Perhaps we could add another bit flag in struct
scsi_host_template such as:
unsigned int transport_says_dont_scsi2_lun_cmd:1;
then drivers/usb/storage/scsiglue.c could
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #12 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:41:02AM -0400, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
Perhaps we could add another bit flag in struct
scsi_host_template
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #13 from Martin K. Petersen martin.peter...@oracle.com ---
Alan == Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu writes:
Alan Okay, here's a patch that implements the suggestion, except that I
Alan put the flag in the Scsi_Host structure
Alan == Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu writes:
Alan Okay, here's a patch that implements the suggestion, except that I
Alan put the flag in the Scsi_Host structure instead of the template.
Alan This was to minimize the impact of the change. Among the various
Alan SCSI-over-USB transports,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:41PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
Alan Okay, here's a patch that implements the suggestion, except that I
Alan put the flag in the Scsi_Host structure instead of the template.
Alan This was to minimize the impact of the change. Among the various
Alan
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #10 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:58:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:58:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
Why was this change needed in the first
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 11:58:37AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
Why was this change needed in the first place? There's no explanation
in the patch itself.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
Why was this change needed in the first place? There's no explanation
in the patch itself.
Which chance? The one to not support SG_FLAG_LUN_INHIBIT?
At
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
Why was this change needed in the first place? There's no explanation
in the patch itself.
Which chance?
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #8 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #9 from Tiziano Bacocco tiziano.baco...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alan Stern from comment #8)
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
I doubt either of them
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #4 from d gilbert dgilb...@interlog.com ---
On 14-07-29 05:57 PM, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
Alan a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk changed:
What|Removed
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:29:47PM +0200, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
If not and since I'm told black lists and the like won't
work, my advice for the record is to use FreeBSD or Windows
for tools that need this capability.
I doubt either of them forces users to hack up flags for these cases.
At
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:29:47PM +0200, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
If not and since I'm told black lists and the like won't
work, my advice for the record is to use FreeBSD or Windows
for tools that need this capability.
I doubt either of them
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #5 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 03:29:47PM +0200, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
If not and since I'm told black lists and the like won't
work, my
Please don't remove names from the CC: list; use Reply-To-All. I had
to go back and add all the names back in.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Tiziano Bacocco wrote:
Test with alcor based USB flash drives, linux 3.16 will remove the 3 msb of
the CDB byte when using SG raw
Sure, but isn't that what you
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #6 from Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu ---
Please don't remove names from the CC: list; use Reply-To-All. I had
to go back and add all the names back in.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Tiziano Bacocco wrote:
Test with alcor based USB
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
--- Comment #7 from Tiziano Bacocco tiziano.baco...@gmail.com ---
Not when issuing vendor specific commands , even if the flash drive has only 1
LUN , there's the need of using these bits with LUN numbers higher than the
reported number of LUNs
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
Alan a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
40 matches
Mail list logo
