From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Device flags: use_10_for_rw and use_10_for_ms Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:51:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20051130145134.GP15804@suse.de> References: <20051129200334.GB15804@suse.de> <20051130080854.GD15804@suse.de> <1133361995.3312.0.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:49739 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751258AbVK3Oud (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:50:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1133361995.3312.0.camel@mulgrave> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Alan Stern , Patrick Mansfield , SCSI development list On Wed, Nov 30 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:08 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Oh well, so much for expecting than even the most basic SCSI behaviour > > is always implemented correctly. A device must only return > > 0x05/0x20/0x00 for an illegal opcode. It's a little suspicious I'd say, > > are you sure it isn't something else affecting this? Even though there > > are crappy devices out there, this seems a little too odd to me. > > And anyway, just because it doesn't actually work in the failing case > doesn't mean this isn't a good patch ... it's certainly unsafe to switch > back to 6 byte commands without checking for the correct illegal opcode > sense, so we should put it in anyway. Yup, I think so too. -- Jens Axboe