From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pat LaVarre Subject: Re: [usb-storage] unsolicited sense in 2.6.0-test5 usb-storage.ko Date: 10 Sep 2003 16:08:37 -0600 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1063231717.6245.22.camel@patehci2> References: <1063229049.6245.12.camel@patehci2> <20030910145252.F13649@one-eyed-alien.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from email-out2.iomega.com ([147.178.1.83]:62866 "EHLO email.iomega.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265871AbTIJWHk (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:07:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20030910145252.F13649@one-eyed-alien.net> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: mdharm-scsi@one-eyed-alien.net Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, usb-storage@one-eyed-alien.net, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > > > The reason for the unsolicited REQUEST-SENSE ... > > > > Help, lost me. > > > > I'm thinking usb-storage auto sense should > > always and only follow bCSWStatus = x01 > > Failed. I'm thinking unsolicited auto sense > > should occur only if the layers above request > > such an abuse - never automagically. > > > > I'm thinking not injecting unsolicited auto > > sense is a part of the unwritten specification > > that "everyone knows" helps hosts get along > > with devices. > > > > No? Where have I gone wrong? > > Experience tells us that this is a flawed algorithm. I don't mean to be stubborn - but I do not understand. Are you saying we have experience of devices that work Better if we the host assault them with unsolicited request sense? Personally I have precisely the opposite history of pain: I know of Scsi transports that die if abused with an unsolicited request sense. I know bInterfaceProtocol = x01 CB pretty much requires unsolicited request sense. I mean to be asking about bInterfaceProtocol = x50 BBB. > > ... I should prepare and forward > > a patch to correct sgp_dd? ... > > ... > > Yes. Clear now, thanks, will do. Pat LaVarre