> From: Douglas Gilbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wed 4/9/2003 1:45 AM
>
> Back to one of my favourite subjects: replacing the
> emulated flag with a protocol identifier ...
In short: How about removing the emulated flag
altogether? Answered at a link somewhere, right?
At length ...
>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:16:29PM -0700, Pat LaVarre wrote:
> In particular, passing CDB's thru sg will mark them
> Required, until/ unless we rev sg to let its client
> choose to say Required or not?
That was my intent, at least. The assumption being that a userspace
program should have done an
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:39:05PM -0800, Linus
> > Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > How about making the SCSI stuff pass a "common"
> > > flag (or "required") down with the command?
> > > Then, a emulated thing could just decide to
> > > punt all commands with an immediate failure if
> > > they aren'
On Mon, Mar 24 2003, Pat LaVarre wrote:
> > For sd, we gauge the size of the command from the
> > size of the medium: <1Gb=> six byte, from 1Gb to
> > 2Tb 10 byte, over 2Tb 16 byte
>
> By now this theory we have completely disavowed?
Yes it was wrong, see earlier posting.
(BTW, top posting suc
> For sd, we gauge the size of the command from the
> size of the medium: <1Gb=> six byte, from 1Gb to
> 2Tb 10 byte, over 2Tb 16 byte
By now this theory we have completely disavowed?
I haven't seen our English yet mention that asking to
read/write more than xFF blocks triggers us to skip
past
On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:39:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about making the SCSI stuff pass a "common" flag (or "required") down
> with the command? Then, a emulated thing could just decide to punt all
> commands with an immediate failure if they aren't marked "required".
>
> That stil
