On 2019/12/17 12:57, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/16/19 6:35 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >> >> Guenter, >> >>> If and when drives are detected which report bad information, such >>> drives can be added to a blacklist without impact on the core SCSI or >>> ATA code. Until that happens, not loading the driver solves the >>> problem on any affected system. >> >> My only concern with that is that we'll have blacklisting several >> places. We already have ATA and SCSI blacklists. If we now add a third >> place, that's going to be a maintenance nightmare. >> >> More on that below. >> >>>> My concerns are wrt. identifying whether SMART data is available for >>>> USB/UAS. I am not too worried about ATA and "real" SCSI (ignoring RAID >>>> controllers that hide the real drives in various ways). >> >> OK, so I spent my weekend tinkering with 15+ years of accumulated USB >> devices. And my conclusion is that no, we can't in any sensible manner, >> support USB storage monitoring in the kernel. There is no heuristic that >> I can find that identifies that "this is a hard drive or an SSD and >> attempting one of the various SMART methods may be safe". As opposed to >> "this is a USB key that's likely to lock up if you try". And that's >> ignoring the drives with USB-ATA bridges that I managed to wedge in my >> attempt at sending down commands. >> >> Even smartmontools is failing to work on a huge part of my vintage >> collection. Thanks to a wide variety of bridges with random, custom >> interfaces. >> >> So my stance on all this is that I'm fine with your general approach for >> ATA. I will post a patch adding the required bits for SCSI. And if a >> device does not implement either of the two standard methods, people >> should use smartmontools. >> >> Wrt. name, since I've added SCSI support, satatemp is a bit of a >> misnomer. drivetemp, maybe? No particular preference. >> > Agreed, if we extend this to SCSI, satatemp is less than perfect. > drivetemp ? disktemp ? I am open to suggestions, with maybe a small > personal preference for disktemp out of those two. "disk" tend to imply HDD, excluding SSDs. So my vote goes to "drivetemp", or even the more generic, "devtemp". -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
