>>>>> "Sitsofe" == Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Last time around we identified this as a problem with Microsoft's >> interpretation of the T10 SBC spec. And they promised that they are >> going to fix that. Sitsofe> OK but if we were happy to wait for Microsoft to fix the Sitsofe> problem on the host why were the (broken and incomplete) Sitsofe> BLIST_SKIP_VPD_PAGES patches committed to 3.17 rather than Sitsofe> withdrawn? What's going to be done about those patches now? There are two orthogonal problems. One being that the driver advertised conformance to an old SCSI spec. That's being addressed with the separate SPC-3 patch. The other issue is that thin provisioning is being incorrectly advertised. Because that's being addressed by Microsoft and is an isolated use case I'm hesitant to add quirk for it. Whereas I know several other devices that will benefit from the TRY_VPD_PAGES blacklist option. -- Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
