On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:45:37AM -0700, Timothy Thelin wrote: > > I was curious about the reasoning behind this decision and how to fix an > issue that came up because of it.
The reasoning goes something like this: There are lots of devices which
report 0, but need the SCSI-II 10-byte commands to work.
> I have some time to help in solving the above. But what do people think the
> solution should be?
>
> Here are some ideas floating in my head:
> 1) Promote the scsi0 device to scsi3 (instead of scsi2) since it most likely
> follows scsi3 forms of commands that it happens to support
That's not going to fly. Lots of devices report 0 and follow 2, not 3.
SCSI 3 triggers new and exciting behavior from SCSI core.
> 2) Leave the scsi0 device as scsi0, and make sure the scsi stack is aware of
> scsi0 devices (i.e. don't stick LUN info into cdb[ 1 ] )
That will break all the devices which report 0 but need 10-bit commands ala
SCSI-II.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
I need a computer?
-- Customer
User Friendly, 2/19/1998
pgp9ekCM0vzjI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
