Douglas Gilbert wrote:
With repect to my libata TEST UNIT READY patch there
is a good chance that can be dropped. The feedback
from the t10 reflector seems to indicate the current
definition may be changed, unfortunately the proposed
changes may require some SAT state information being
held for each libata device (e.g. pseudo "STOPPED"
Keeping some state is not a big deal. If it grows beyond a single
struct member, though, I would probably be inclined to encapsulate the
state in a separate struct ata_scsi_xlat_state or somesuch.
state to mimic SBC-2). It also seems some power up
issues may need to involve the transport layer
for resolution. For example, SSP's additional sense code
of LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, NOTIFY (ENABLE SPINUP)
REQUIRED may also need to be issued by libata.
libata, in general, is pretty ignorant of PM issues :)
Another potential issue that I didn't mention was support
for the "IMMED" bit in commands like START STOP UNIT; i.e.
issue the corresponding ATA command but return to the caller
without waiting for the ATA command to finish.
No need to avoid the issue, I know all about it :)
No plans to support stuff such as IMMED; too much pain for little gain.
Showing my aversion to writing something like:
u8 page[sizeof(def_caching_mpage)];
Using sizeof in an array declaration seems to be a grey area in C,
but gcc accepts it so perhaps I shouldn't worry.
Your example (quoted) should be fine on all compilers we care about :)
+/* FIXME: we may want to issue two SET FEATURES commands here */
+ if (dra != !(ata_id_rahead_enabled(qc->dev->id))) {
bug: need one more '!' AFAICS
More coffee needed (by you) IMO. The logical inversion is required
Whoops, indeed, sorry about that.
+ case INQUIRY:
+ if (((cmd[1] & 0x3) == 0x1) && (cmd[2] == 0x89)) {
what do these magic numbers indicate?
Place holder for ATA Information VPD page [0x89]. Valid when
CmdDt=0 and EVPD=1. That page is defined in sat-r05. I'm about to
decode that page in sg_inq and sdparm. Its payload is the ATA
IDENTIFY command's response and the ATA device's "signature"
[whatever that is].
Let's not add such a placeholder. I'd rather just wait until the real
thing appears :)
Jeff
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
