On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:29:19PM +0200, Christian Iversen wrote: > 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?
It's the last one. Lots and lots of devices lie outright about this.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
S: Another stupid question?
G: There's no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people.
-- Stef and Greg
User Friendly, 7/15/1998
pgpiVVElJ7d18.pgp
Description: PGP signature
