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 12:33:50 -0600 Message-ID: <1131129230.3532.40.camel@mulgrave> References: <20051102234532.GC26148@one-eyed-alien.net> <1131077287.3117.22.camel@mulgrave> <20051104172844.GA12384@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]:44729 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750806AbVKDSd4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2005 13:33:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20051104172844.GA12384@one-eyed-alien.net> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@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 09:28 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > I've no distinct recollection of someone removing this, but if I > > remember correctly what it used to do, it was a hack to stop us from > > mangling SCSI-3 CDB's. We fixed the mid-layer not to require the hack > > by only setting the CDB[1] lun field for SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 devices (as > > the standards mandate). What's the actual problem? No SCSI-1 or SCSI-2 > > device should have any vendor specific CDBs that uses these bits in > > CDB[1]. > > Unfortunately, reality appears to disagree with the last "should". I've > personally seen devices with vendor-specific commands that want to control > CDB[1] in SCSI-2. Which device and command? It isn't some vendor who screwed up SCSI-3 compliance and then decided to "fix" it by only claiming SCSI-2, is it? > I didn't know it was removed; I only know what Timothy Thelin told me. Can > we get the feature back? Not at all easily ... changes to support it would have to thread through several structures in both the block layer and the scsi subsystem. James