From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Problems with sr_get_events Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:38:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20120417153822.GD32402@google.com> References: <20120416225512.GH12421@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:46766 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754663Ab2DQPi2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 11:38:28 -0400 Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so8544709dak.11 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern Cc: SCSI development list On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:33:27AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > Hmmm... Maybe but we've been sending GET_EVENT without such provision > > for very long time now. I feel reluctant to change something which > > seems to work in this area even if that something is technically > > wrong. It's not like cheap USB devices tend to be technically correct > > anyway. > > All right, then how do you feel about this patch? It makes minimal > changes, to avoid the inefficiency of sending repeated commands that > can never work. Hmmm... while I don't object to the patch per-se, I'm not sure what benefit it brings. Do you have any specific case where this is necessary / beneficial? What are we gaining by not issuing GET_EVENT? Thanks. -- tejun