On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Patrick Mansfield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:05:25AM -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > Okay, what am I missing? > > > > Looking at that patch, it looks to me like if sg.c set a flag in the SCSI > > command block then scsi_core.c could use that flag in the test to determine > > if the LUN should be masked-in. > > > > HOWEVER, I keep hearing that the changes will be extensive. What am I > > missing? > > Not extensive AFAICT ... > > The scmd/cdb is not available until we call scsi_get_command() in the > request function. So you would have to add a field into scsi_request, set > it in sg (in both sg.c block/scsi_ioctl.c, test via sd and sg when you are > done), and add the field in scsi_cmnd, and set scmd one in > scsi_init_cmd_from_req(). Isn't it true that scsi_request is going away? Everything will have to use generic request structures. > But as far as black listing, it does seem like a better solution in that > user apps do not need special code. I don't think blacklisting is a good way to do this. In principle any USB mass storage device -- any SCSI device, in fact -- might have a vendor-specific pass-thru needing special handling. It doesn't have to be correlated with the vendor, the product, the SCSI level, the transport, or anything else. Alan Stern - : 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
