From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley-d9PhHud1JfjCXq6kfMZ53/egYHeGw8Jk@public.gmane.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: David Webb <djw-8SE8IwxHpK9aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org>,
linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
stable-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uas: Add a new NO_REPORT_LUNS quirk
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:11:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459437073.2958.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56FD3C27.2050708-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 17:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31-03-16 16:48, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 14:22 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Add a new NO_REPORT_LUNS quirk and set it for Seagate drives with
> > > an usb-id of: 0bc2:331a, as these will fail to respond to a
> > > REPORT_LUNS command.
> >
> > Actually, if we're sending them a report luns command, they must be
> > reporting in at SCSI-3 SPC or higher. Should we be quirking them
> > down to SCSI-2 instead because it reduces the risk of running into
> > something else they're not doing from the SPC command set?
>
> These are fairly new devices, so they should really be scsi3, but the
> usb <-> sata bridge (presumably) used does not seem to like
> report_luns.
That's what I'm questioning: REPORT LUNS is one of the big SCSI-3
changes, if they don't support that, it really looks like someone
picked up an old engine and just fuzzed the inquiry data to return SCSI
-3. In which case we should put it back to SCSI-2 where it belongs.
Also, if it's USB<->SCSI bridge, that isn't really UAS, is it?
> Note that usb-storage simple sets no_report_luns conditionally for
> all usb-storage devices. The scsi people have repeatedly asked me to
> not do this kinda blanket blacklisting for uas devices, because they
> hope that uas will allow them to more or less do proper scsi over
> usb, so we end up with blacklisting specific commands every now and
> then to get devices to work.
Well, we were hoping that with UAS the USB device creators would
actually learn what a standard was when it bit them, yes. The fact
that Seagate can release a SCSI-3 UAS device that doesn't do REPORT
LUNS kind of dashes that hope.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc: David Webb <djw@noc.ac.uk>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uas: Add a new NO_REPORT_LUNS quirk
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:11:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459437073.2958.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56FD3C27.2050708@redhat.com>
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 17:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31-03-16 16:48, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 14:22 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Add a new NO_REPORT_LUNS quirk and set it for Seagate drives with
> > > an usb-id of: 0bc2:331a, as these will fail to respond to a
> > > REPORT_LUNS command.
> >
> > Actually, if we're sending them a report luns command, they must be
> > reporting in at SCSI-3 SPC or higher. Should we be quirking them
> > down to SCSI-2 instead because it reduces the risk of running into
> > something else they're not doing from the SPC command set?
>
> These are fairly new devices, so they should really be scsi3, but the
> usb <-> sata bridge (presumably) used does not seem to like
> report_luns.
That's what I'm questioning: REPORT LUNS is one of the big SCSI-3
changes, if they don't support that, it really looks like someone
picked up an old engine and just fuzzed the inquiry data to return SCSI
-3. In which case we should put it back to SCSI-2 where it belongs.
Also, if it's USB<->SCSI bridge, that isn't really UAS, is it?
> Note that usb-storage simple sets no_report_luns conditionally for
> all usb-storage devices. The scsi people have repeatedly asked me to
> not do this kinda blanket blacklisting for uas devices, because they
> hope that uas will allow them to more or less do proper scsi over
> usb, so we end up with blacklisting specific commands every now and
> then to get devices to work.
Well, we were hoping that with UAS the USB device creators would
actually learn what a standard was when it bit them, yes. The fact
that Seagate can release a SCSI-3 UAS device that doesn't do REPORT
LUNS kind of dashes that hope.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-31 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-31 12:22 [PATCH] uas: Add a new NO_REPORT_LUNS quirk Hans de Goede
[not found] ` <1459426971-11927-1-git-send-email-hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-31 14:17 ` Alan Stern
2016-03-31 14:17 ` Alan Stern
2016-03-31 14:48 ` James Bottomley
2016-03-31 15:03 ` Hans de Goede
[not found] ` <56FD3C27.2050708-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-31 15:11 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2016-03-31 15:11 ` James Bottomley
2016-03-31 15:23 ` Hans de Goede
[not found] ` <56FD40FE.3030302-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2016-03-31 17:35 ` David Webb
2016-03-31 17:35 ` David Webb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1459437073.2958.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley-d9phhud1jfjcxq6kfmz53/egyhegw8jk@public.gmane.org \
--cc=djw-8SE8IwxHpK9aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hdegoede-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kraxel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-scsi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=stable-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.