You didn't send me the patch... :)
Don't worry, newbie... it's a common mistake, even for the pros.
Matt
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 10:33:02PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 11:14:14AM -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > We're definately getting closer here...
>
> I think I might be even closer with this patch. I've progressed from
> 13k down to 2k. This is a great lesson on how kernel hacking is easier
> than it seems.
>
> > For now, I'd rather have a patch which uses a "standard" 8 byte header on
> > the INQUIRY data, and then when we find a device which needs a fake inquiry
> > response which isn't a direct-access device, we can look at what actually
> > needs to be changed and change it appropriately. Right now, we're trying
> > to solve a problem we may not even have.
>
> You're right. I don't think there are going to be many USB-storage
> devices that aren't direct-access and broken. I moved the 8 byte header
> into usb.c in the block that handles this case. There isn't any added
> bloat to struct us_unusual_dev.
>
> > Tho I definately like the way to intercept the command and use the flag
> > now.
>
> :)
>
> I noticed one thing while jumping around the code. There is a comment
> that talks about US_FL_DUMMY_INQUIRY, but the flag is never implemented.
> I wonder what was going on when the comment was added.
>
> Nate
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
C: They kicked your ass, didn't they?
S: They were cheating!
-- The Chief and Stef
User Friendly, 11/19/1997
PGP signature
