On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:57:46PM -0500, Eric Youngdale wrote:
> It is a little more than just changing the define. I believe (and other
> people have confirmed) that some of the older host adapters would be unable
> to handle the larger command sizes. The limitations could be
> hardware/firmware in some cases. To be really safe, we probably want to
> limit 16-byte commands to host adapters that claim to be ready for them.
> Thus I believe that such a change would involve first adding a field for a
> maximum command size to the Scsi_Host structure, which gets initialized to
> 12 by default.
Hrm... are you saying that they couldn't handle the larger buffer, or the
larger command?
If it's the larger command, that's fine with me. Just don't send that
command. Just because we have the larger buffer doesn't mean that
everything will support the larger commands. I hardly expect a SCSI-I
adapter to respect SCSI-III standards.
If you're saying the larger buffer... I'm a bit stunned. How is that
possible? So the array is too long... is someone trying to map
Scsi_Request data structures directly onto some sort of adapter memory?
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
What, are you one of those Microsoft-bashing Linux freaks?
-- Customer to Greg
User Friendly, 2/10/1999
PGP signature
