From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: underflow field Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 17:49:31 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030203224931.GI29516@redhat.com> References: <43220000.1043970348@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43220000.1043970348@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:45:48PM -0700, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > I received a recent report of the aic7xxx driver reporting: > > (scsi0:A:0:0): CDB: 0x12 0x1 0x80 0x0 0x60 0x0 > (scsi0:A:0:0): Saw underflow (80 of 96 bytes). Treated as error > > This is because the aic7xxx driver (and the aic79xx driver) honors > the underflow field. Has this field been deprecated and thus should > be ignored by HBA drivers? If not, why is it that scsi_scan.c doesn't > set underflow to 0 (or maybe 1 in this case) for commands that can have > variable length responses? The above is a fetch of the serial number > from VPD page 0x80. Because it was an oversight that needs fixing. When the VPD Inquiry code was added it should have had a correct underflow initializer and it doesn't look like it does. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606