Re: [PATCH] scsi: vpd pages are mandatory for SPC-2

[Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>]

On 16-03-15 08:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:28:42AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> But it feels even sillier having to whitelist every
>> standards-conformant device here; I certainly was when I figured
>> that EMC Clariion won't work properly without this patch.
>>
>> And the idea was to mark off _misbehaving_ drives, not the other way
>> round.
>
> It's the idea, but it has to prove workable as well in the end.
>
> That being said I'd prefer to allow Hannes patch in and see what
> the fallout is.

I don't have many drafts archived for SPC-2 but the two that I do have:
    spc2r18.pdf [20000521]
    spc2r20.pdf [20010718]

indicate that those two VPD pages were made mandatory right at the
end of the draft cycle for SPC-2. spc2r20.pdf was the last draft
prior to the standard and it does show them as mandatory in table 185
on page 218. The corresponding table in spc2r18.pdf does not have
a column indicating whether the listed VPD pages are mandatory or
not (or words that I can find in the description of VPD pages 0x0
and 0x83 to suggest they are mandatory).

Doug Gilbert