From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:44:18 +0200 Message-ID: <1378845858.24378.1.camel@linux-fkkt.site> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:34825 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750879Ab3IJUoU (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:44:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: hare@suse.de, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 13:25 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that > > HS devices may also need this feature, which would require > > a quirk. Does this mean that the patch is acceptable only > > with an additional predefined quirk, or do you insist that all > > devices be handled with quirks? > > Indeed, we already know of one or two high-speed devices that suffer > from this bug: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=133586313307042&w=2 > > This may influence your decision. I'm not certain whether it is > important enough to merit a new quirk flag, but people experiencing the > problem may have some strong opinions. What is the alternative? I think we can be sure that no drive enclosure will crash with READ_CAPACITY_16. I am not sure about card readers. Does anybody know what Windows does? Regards Oliver