From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: inquiry in scsi_scan.c Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:07:43 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030106220743.GA29126@redhat.com> References: <20030106112259.B13916@one-eyed-alien.net> <3E19EBC4.6000601@splentec.com> <20030106130547.E13916@one-eyed-alien.net> <3E19F223.4020208@splentec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E19F223.4020208@splentec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Matthew Dharm , Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 04:16:19PM -0500, Luben Tuikov wrote: > Matthew Dharm wrote: > >I'm told this is a bad idea because there are some HBA which snoop the > >INQUIRY data. Since I don't know how that snooping works, I can't comment > >further. > > I do, in my own LLDDs. If anything the additional length might increase. > Others snoop it for their own awareness of the device and personal gains > to possibly result in better service to the actual device. > > I cannot see how this could fail. This can't fail. Luben's right here. If the lldd is snooping INQUIRY response, then the lldd is responsible for knowing how much it actually transferred and the scsi mid layer is not on the hook for telling it anything. We are free to play our "try different INQUIRY lengths" games at the mid level and ignore any lldd snooping entirely. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606