From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: brooks@netgate.net Subject: Re: Bug in the scsi_id (0.9 version) utility Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20080314060831.GA18884@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1205501914.2904.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1205501914.2904.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-hotplug-owner@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Mike Anderson , linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org, Brian.Fehling@citrix.com, xen@netgate.net, cases.634568.7962_21175.de8b732451@cases.netsuite.com, linux-scsi List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > This is incorrect; SPC does specify zero in reserved fields. > >> The SAM definitions section and the SPC Keywords section provides a >> definition of what should be in a reserved field. Thanks for the clarification. I've submitted the bug to OpenSolaris. >> That said we are not required to be checking the reserved fields for zero >> but in this case we are doing so to work around another device issue. >> >> Instead of adding yet another device work around to the "if" which >> makes it hard to rework the code in the future as you do not know how many >> vendor, models are running through certain non compliant checks (i.e. more >> than the intend models may exhibit like behavior). >> >> We possible should look at updating how we handle not compliant behavior. >> scsi_id.config is available but that must not be useful in all cases as >> the standard page 83 code has a check for the pre-spc3-83 case even though >> it is selectable through the config file and command line. > > Some type of blacklist might work: we're already starting to find USB > devices that aren't too happy with VPD inquiries. That makes sense. Please let me know what you decide, and if there's anything more I can do to help. Kevin