cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-03 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Had a bit of conversation over at usb-storage mailing list below. cdrecord 2.00.3 works fine with USB freecom drive, but cdrecord 2.01 crashes the firmware. Looks like there are two new READ_BUFFER scsi commands in 2.01, and the drive doesn't like the 2nd one with a large transfer length (0xfc00).

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-04 Thread Joerg Schilling
Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Had a bit of conversation over at usb-storage mailing list below. > cdrecord 2.00.3 works fine with USB freecom drive, but cdrecord 2.01 > crashes the firmware. Looks like there are two new READ_BUFFER > scsi commands in 2.01, and the drive doesn't like t

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-04 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Joerg Schilling wrote: Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Had a bit of conversation over at usb-storage mailing list below. cdrecord 2.00.3 works fine with USB freecom drive, but cdrecord 2.01 crashes the firmware. Looks like there are two new READ_BUFFER scsi commands in 2.01, and the drive

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-09 Thread Joerg Schilling
Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you sure that this is a firmware bug? > > > > This may also be a bug in the kernel usb driver. > > I cannot tell whether it is firmware or kernel driver bug, but the > verdict is that on exactly the same system+hardware combination, > cdrecord 2.00

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-09 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Joerg Schilling wrote: Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are you sure that this is a firmware bug? This may also be a bug in the kernel usb driver. I cannot tell whether it is firmware or kernel driver bug, but the verdict is that on exactly the same system+hardware combination, cdrecord 2.

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-09 Thread Joerg Schilling
Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Older cdrecord versions did not do a sped test. > > > > Cdrecord asumes either a working drive or at least a kernel that returns > > correct > > error information so cdrecord will know that a specific command does not > > work. > > In this case, the

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-09 Thread Hin-Tak Leung
Joerg Schilling wrote: Which OS? Linux, as explained below, I had no way of installing Solaris 10. Q: If you find that the Linux kernel is broken, how about making it optional? A: Well, I know for a long time and cdrtools was developed on Solaris since the beginning for exactly this reas

Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.

2005-05-10 Thread Joerg Schilling
Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Q: If you find that the Linux kernel is broken, how about making it > > optional? > > > > A: Well, I know for a long time and cdrtools was developed on Solaris since > > the beginning for exactly this reason. > > I don't want to turn this into a L