Re: [PATCH] sd: close hole in > 2T device rejection when !CONFIG_LBDAF

Martin K. Petersen
2017-02-28T03:21:58Z

>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> writes:

Bart,

Bart> Sorry but I still don't understand why the two checks are
Bart> different. How about the (untested) patch below? The approach
Bart> below avoids that the check is duplicated and - at least in my
Bart> opinion - results in code that is easier to read.

I'll take a closer look at your patch tomorrow. I am sympathetic to
having a sanity check helper function. That would also give us a single
place to filter out crackpot values reported by USB doodads.

--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering