Re: [example PATCH - not for applying] exclude certain commands

[Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 05:21:07PM +0200, Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:

> That is good. But there is one point I do not understand.
> Stelian Pop reports on two devices, both US_SC_UFI.
> But usb_stor_ufi_command() already contained code to
> make the length 8. How can it be that my sd.c change
> improved things?

Good question.

Could it be that the unusual_devs treatment is flawed somewhere ?

I'll enable debug traces in usb-storage tomorrow again and try to
trace this a bit more. If there is something more specific I need
to look at just tell me.

> Can it be that earlier tests were for 2.5.67 and later tests
> for 2.5.68, and Matt's improvements of the latter over the former
> are the real reason of improved behaviour?

No. I've done all tests (both without - resulting in failures - and
with the sd.c patch) with the latest 2.5 bk tree as of this morning.

The sd.c patch *is* needed to make it work.

Stelian.
-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>