From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Subject: underflow field Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:45:48 -0700 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <43220000.1043970348@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> Reply-To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from redfish.adaptec.com (redfish.adaptec.com [162.62.50.11]) by magic.adaptec.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0UNk0D17597 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:46:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from btc.btc.adaptec.com (btc.btc.adaptec.com [10.100.0.52]) by redfish.adaptec.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA15630 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:45:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.100.253.70] (aslan [10.100.253.70]) by btc.btc.adaptec.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA26500 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:45:47 -0700 (MST) Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Justin