From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stelian Pop Subject: Re: [example PATCH - not for applying] exclude certain commands Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:33:55 +0200 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030424213355.GA1277@deep-space-9.dsnet> References: Reply-To: Stelian Pop Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from d146.dhcp212-198-27.noos.fr ([212.198.27.146]:55948 "EHLO deep-space-9.dsnet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264455AbTDXVWd (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:22:33 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, afafc@rnl.ist.utl.pt, greg@kroah.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mike@hingston.demon.co.uk, pwkpete@yahoo.com 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