From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] FW: USB 2.0 external hard drive problem Date: 09 Feb 2004 11:50:13 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1076345415.2090.30.camel@mulgrave> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat1.steeleye.com ([65.114.3.130]:11409 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265269AbUBIQup (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:50:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: Matthew Dharm , Joerg Schilling , magliery@csb.yale.edu, appro@fy.chalmers.se, USB development list , SCSI development list On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 11:40, Alan Stern wrote: > In the absence of anything better, we're forced to assume "bad" status > corresponds to Check Condition... > > What do you think, Matt? Should we remove the auto-sense for short > transfers when we get "good" status? Bearing in mind that it's > technically legal, but other drivers or programs may not expect it? Also > bearing in mind that we have no choice but to auto-sense for non-IN > transfers with the CB transport. OK, if you want to understand what the mid-layer problem is, look at scsi_finish_command(). You see in there we set DRIVER_SENSE if we find any valid sense code in the sense buffer (including NO SENSE) We will return this to the user as a sense error at various points. The safest course, if you want to send unsolicited request sense commands is probably to zero out the sense buffer if you get NO SENSE back. James