From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Douglas Gilbert Subject: Re: [Bug 115351] New: redundant pointless messages Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:49:47 -0400 Message-ID: <56F87FAB.1040907@interlog.com> References: Reply-To: dgilbert@interlog.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.infotech.no ([82.134.31.41]:55844 "EHLO smtp.infotech.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752441AbcC1At5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:49:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 16-03-27 03:48 PM, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115351 > > Bug ID: 115351 > Summary: redundant pointless messages > Product: IO/Storage > Version: 2.5 > Kernel Version: All > Hardware: All > OS: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: low > Priority: P1 > Component: SCSI > Assignee: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > Reporter: spamme@ecybernard.com > Regression: No > > First, why does it have to log "Very big device" 44 times on startup. > Second, Given the size of ALL modern hard drives an array of almost any size > probably triggers this warning. That will only occur if this function: static int sd_try_rc16_first(struct scsi_device *sdp) { if (sdp->host->max_cmd_len < 16) return 0; if (sdp->try_rc_10_first) return 0; if (sdp->scsi_level > SCSI_SPC_2) return 1; if (scsi_device_protection(sdp)) return 1; return 0; } returns zero and the disks in question have more than 2**32 - 1 logical blocks. [For 512 byte blocks that is 2 TiB, for 4096 byte blocks that is 16 TiB.] Modern SCSI (SAS) disks should be reporting SPC-3 or higher compliance as should virtual disks in any properly configured array. > Suggestion: just get rid of this pointless message. Maybe you should just > always use 16, or maybe for future proofing go to 24 or 32. The 2**64 logical block maximum in the READ CAPACITY(16) response should be sufficient, for the time being. Request: find out why sd_try_rc16_first() returns zero. Doug Gilbert