On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 05:50:17AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > 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". > "devtemp" would apply to all devices with temperature sensors, which would be a bit too generic. I'll take that as a vote for "drivetemp". Guenter
