From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hfccm-0003Af-IR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:01:08 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Hfcci-00038C-C4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:01:08 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hfcci-00037o-6q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:01:04 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1HfcXE-00018K-0J
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 22 Apr 2007 09:55:30 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] scsi interface patch
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:54:25 +0100
References: <a20f395e0704211901r52c39000y3db6be74e6854175@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a20f395e0704211901r52c39000y3db6be74e6854175@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200704221454.27190.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Wang Cheng Yeh <cywang.eda@gmail.com>

On Sunday 22 April 2007 03:01, Wang Cheng Yeh wrote:
> The number of responded bytes from scsi device do not match the expected
> value of lsi53c895a driver. hence, the mismatch interrupt happen, but the
> driver does not always handle  it correctly.
> My patch make the responded bytes as expected and the interrupt will not
> happen.

What makes you think padding the response with zeros is the right thing to do?
I think this is a bug elsewhere (maybe in your device driver). 

Paul