[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Will look a bit more at the details later. For now a question: this > call does a MODE_SENSE with the DBD (disable block descriptors) bit > set. Is there a reason for that? Wouldn't the same code work in the > same way without that bit?
The reason was just least line of resistance. The code doesn't use the block descriptors, so there's no need to ask for them. The code is written to skip over the block descriptors, just in case the device returns them, so setting DBD to zero should have no practical effect. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > And the reason I ask is that we already have sd_do_mode_sense6(), so > part of sd_read_cache_type() can be simply replaced by a call of > sd_do_mode_sense6(), but the latter needs an extra parameter if DBD is > really needed. I agree with replacing the functionality with this call. On general principle, the DBD bit (and any other missing pieces) should be added to mode_sense6 just to make it as useful as possible (and, I suppose, the call should be moved into scsi_lib since more than just sd could make use of it). > And a second question: sd_read_cache_type() is called also when no > medium is present. Objections against only calling when media are > present? Well, the cache is pretty often part of the permanent assembly, not part of the removable medium, so I think it should still be called for removable media. That begs the question, of course, what should the cache type be---it strikes me as rather unsafe to have a removable RW medium with a write back cache? I suppose at the very least we should to a SYNCHRONIZE on ejection if it's write back? James ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
