In an ideal world, we would use the existing ATA_12 opcode
to issue 12-byte ATA passthrough commands for libata ATAPI drives
from userspace.
But ATA_12 happens to have the same SCSI opcode value as the older
CD/RW "BLANK" command, widely used by cdrecord and friends.
So, to achieve ATA passthru c
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 19:35 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> In an ideal world, we would use the existing ATA_12 opcode
> to issue 12-byte ATA passthrough commands for libata ATAPI drives
> from userspace.
>
> But ATA_12 happens to have the same SCSI opcode value as the older
> CD/RW "BLANK" command, wid
James Bottomley wrote:
..
I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to do here. My
understanding is that ATA_12 and ATA_16 are part of the SAT layer. i.e.
they're used when we're speaking SCSI to an underlying ATA device to
send taskfiles. However, ATAPI devices don't use SAT ... ever
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 00:42 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to do here. My
> > understanding is that ATA_12 and ATA_16 are part of the SAT layer. i.e.
> > they're used when we're speaking SCSI to an underlying ATA device to
>
James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 00:42 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to do here. My
understanding is that ATA_12 and ATA_16 are part of the SAT layer. i.e.
they're used when we're speaking SCSI to an underlying AT
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 10:45 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 00:42 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> >> James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to do here. My
> >>> understanding is that ATA_12 and ATA_16 are part of the
James Bottomley wrote:
Er I've only seen one patch ... I did ask if there was another to add
the ATA_16 interpretation ... did that get lost by the SCSI reflector?
Ahh.. my apologies on that, James.
The two patches apply and build independently,
and the second patch was only for libata, so it
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 00:42 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>> James Bottomley wrote:
>>> I don't think I quite understand what you're trying to do here. My
>>> understanding is that ATA_12 and ATA_16 are part of the SAT layer. i.e.
>>> they're used when we're speaking SCSI to an
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:39 -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > Those send out taskfile commands ... my point is that the SAT SCSI
> > commands only come down the SCSI paths, so without additional processing
> > in the ATAPI path they're just packaged up as PACKET commands an
James Bottomley wrote:
As I read the code Mark sent me, current libata will only accept ATA_16
for ATAPI devices (whether type 5 or not) ... pehaps this needs to be
altered?
It could be.
Both ATA_12 and ATA_16 are just ways of getting a taskfile sent
down to the LLD, and ATA_12 is merely a re
On Wed, Jan 03 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> Er, well, as you know, I've never been a fan of this static list. I
> thought Jens was going to put us all out of our misery by making the
> list settable per device by root and thus shovel the problem off onto
> the distros?
The code is there, just h
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
Er, well, as you know, I've never been a fan of this static list. I
thought Jens was going to put us all out of our misery by making the
list settable per device by root and thus shovel the problem off onto
the distros?
The code is
On Thu, Jan 04 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 03 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>Er, well, as you know, I've never been a fan of this static list. I
> >>thought Jens was going to put us all out of our misery by making the
> >>list settable per device by root and thus sh
--- Douglas Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I seem to be fighting a losing battle against the mindset
That may be the case.
> It is the _transport_ that should block the command,
> if it so chooses. In this case the transport is a
> virtual one between sr/sg and libata and libata should
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
