From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: scsi_scan_target and SCSI_2 Date: 27 Nov 2003 09:57:20 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1069948641.1913.41.camel@mulgrave> References: <200311252037.34015.krmurthy@cisco.com> <200311271849.15241.krmurthy@cisco.com> <1069947459.1837.28.camel@mulgrave> <200311272115.28094.krmurthy@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from nat9.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.137]:54532 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264546AbTK0P5a (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:57:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200311272115.28094.krmurthy@cisco.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Krishna Murthy Cc: SCSI Mailing List , davmyers@cisco.com On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 09:45, Krishna Murthy wrote: > What I intended to say was in case we get 3 as the peripheral qualifier > in response to inquiry on lun 0, shouldn't we use the scsi level as returned > in inquiry response instead of using a a default scsi level of SCSI_2. It's open to debate whether a device reporting PQ 3 is required to fill in all the rest of the inquiry data correctly. The code takes the most conservative view. James