From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin K. Petersen" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sd: add support for TCG OPAL self encrypting disks Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 11:19:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20170604124225.27032-1-hch@lst.de> <20170604124225.27032-7-hch@lst.de> <20170606095802.GA20590@lst.de> <20170613064018.GA31330@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170613064018.GA31330@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:40:18 +0200") Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Tejun Heo , Scott Bauer , Jonathan Derrick , Rafael Antognolli , Robert Elliott , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Christoph, >> But as we already set no_report_opcodes for all usb-storage and >> quirked uas devices I think the worst offenders are already covered >> anyway. > > Martin, how do we want to move ahead on this patch? I was suggesting the VPD because that may be easier for the SAS HBA vendors to accommodate for SATA passthrough. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it. For libata I'm fine with keying off a supports_opal:1 flag in scsi_device or something to that effect. I'd just like to reduce the risk of introducing more RSOC regressions. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering