From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Gilbert Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: vpd pages are mandatory for SPC-2 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:19:21 +0100 Message-ID: <56E84419.3040109@interlog.com> References: <1457703965-71028-1-git-send-email-hare@suse.de> <56E7B9AA.3020302@suse.de> <20160315074232.GA10944@lst.de> Reply-To: dgilbert@interlog.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.infotech.no ([82.134.31.41]:45046 "EHLO smtp.infotech.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934740AbcCORT0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2016 13:19:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160315074232.GA10944@lst.de> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, James Bottomley , Hannes Reinecke 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