On Thu, 2018-01-18 at 11:17 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/18/2018 03:43 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > > > > Martin, > > > > > > > > You'd like to spend a precious BLIST bit for this single device > > > which uses vendor-specific ASC/Q? > > > > I really don't want string comparisons in the regular code paths. > > Also not a fan of vendor-specific ASCs. But if you must use them, > > please add a flag and trigger on that. > > > > Since this is a bit of an unusual check condition combo, we could > > entertain whether we should simply always ADD_TO_MLQUEUE on > > 0xb/0xc1/0x1. I wonder what would break? > > > That's the usual problem I have with vendor-specific sense codes. > In general the risk is quite low of different vendors actually using > the same code; I guess we can get away with just adding a debug > message here and enable it without any vendor check. > Then we can reconsider the whole thing once we notice several vendors > using the same sense codes.
Murphy's law says that if we rely on Vendors to chose non-overlapping numbers we'll end up with a clash fairly quickly ... Can't we find a way of doing this in the device_handler? That way we can use vendor specific codes only when we know who the vendor is? James
