From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Neukum Subject: Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:05:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1378911947.28160.18.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]:46435 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754093Ab3IKPFs (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:05:48 -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 Wed, 2013-09-11 at 10:14 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > There are three possibilities: nothing, your proposed patch, and a new Nothing is feasible only if Windows uses READ_CAPACITY_10. > quirk flag. The flag is safest, but also the hardest to maintain. Again the same answer. > > I think we can be sure that no drive enclosure will crash > > with READ_CAPACITY_16. > > I wouldn't count on it, but I don't know of any examples. > > > I am not sure about card readers. > > Or flash drives. > > > Does anybody know what Windows does? > > Not me. It probably varies with different versions of Windows. I'll try to get a Windows machine for a trace. Can you suggest a tracer for Win7? Regards Oliver