From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: use_10_for_ms revisited?
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:58:04 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EFF28AC.104@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030629173632.GA15024@win.tue.nl>
Andries Brouwer wrote:
> Two that I have right here yield 0 80 2 2 20 0 0 0 and
> 0 80 0 2 1F 0 0 0, respectively. (All in hex.)
Ok, you've convinced me I found an ATAPI-only rule that doesn't apply to
USB :) Thanks.
> [I did introduce this use_10_for_ms; it allows a very large
> cleanup in the usb-storage code. Submitted the SCSI part of
> the patch and waited for it to be applied. That took a while
> and when it went in I was a bit short on Linux time. So Matt
> got impatient and started doing the rest himself. He patched
> sr.c - something I would not have done, I considered the SCSI
> part settled - perhaps things broke a bit but James went in and
> fixed some things again. So maybe we are now again ready for
> the intended large cleanup. I would like to see that done,
> and afterwards see this area stable for a few kernel versions.]
I would still prefer to detect "MMC", at least in ATAPI's case, and then
use that flag to trickle down knowledge to use_10_for_ms and similar
features. ATAPI is even easier than I was previously thinking: at
host-alloc time, we already know the devices will be MMC, and never ever
want 6-byte commands.
I grant you that ATAPI is not the whole world, here, but it presents
sufficient cases to warrant a common approach. Both ide-scsi and usb
storage (and my ata-scsi driver) have atapi-specific logic in them for
6-to-10 translation. We can keep adding hueristic upon hueristic to the
kernel to handle these things, or we can step back, look at the bigger
picture, and take advantage of the commonality found.
Stepping back a bit and addressing previous "standards versus reality"
comments (<grin>), I certainly understand the point, and am used to such
things in all areas of hardware :) My main point was that -- at least
wrt ATAPI -- the scsi MMC standards seem to be moving in the direction
of codifying _existing practice_, not making up new standards. IOW,
they are just writing down the things that have been in the field for years.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-29 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-29 6:30 use_10_for_ms revisited? Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 6:38 ` Matthew Dharm
2003-06-29 6:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 6:54 ` Matthew Dharm
2003-06-29 7:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 10:31 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-29 10:22 ` Andries Brouwer
2003-06-29 16:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 17:36 ` Andries Brouwer
2003-06-29 17:58 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2003-06-29 18:02 ` Matthew Dharm
2003-06-29 18:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 18:35 ` Matthew Dharm
2003-06-29 18:36 ` James Bottomley
2003-06-29 19:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-30 0:23 ` Matthew Dharm
2003-06-30 3:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-06-29 18:25 ` Andries Brouwer
2003-06-29 18:32 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3EFF28AC.104@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=aebr@win.tue.nl \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox