From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [usb-storage] [Merging ATA passthru] on integrating SMART/ATA-Security in usb-storage driver Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:53:16 -0600 Message-ID: <1131137596.3532.61.camel@mulgrave> References: <20051102234532.GC26148@one-eyed-alien.net> <1131077287.3117.22.camel@mulgrave> <20051104172844.GA12384@one-eyed-alien.net> <1131129230.3532.40.camel@mulgrave> <20051104203034.GG12384@one-eyed-alien.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:64981 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750863AbVKDUxV (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:53:21 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20051104203034.GG12384@one-eyed-alien.net> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Dharm Cc: Timothy Thelin , t.schorpp@gmx.de, usb-storage@lists.one-eyed-alien.net, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Linux SCSI list On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 12:30 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > Would the block layer really have to change much if the commands only come > from SG_IO? Yes, since the CDB[1] addition is done in scsi_dispatch_cmd() all you really have access to there is the command (and through it the device and host). So a blacklist would be not too much work to implement but actually making the SG_IO flag work would be quite large because it has to be connected first to the request and then to the command. James