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()
> > >
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 back in the days when multi-lun SCSI-2 devices were
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
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
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 re
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 rem
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,
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 s
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.
> >
> >
> "Alan" == Alan Stern 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 until the INQUIRY
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 i
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
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> S
> "Alan" == Alan Stern 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, only the Bulk-
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.
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 ch
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 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
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
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.
>
> Whic
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?
>
>
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
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
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 14-07-29 05:57 PM, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80711
Alan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
25 matches
Mail list logo
