> > > > Can we trigger black listing based on the above > vendor/product values? > > i.e. can you check for these values in usb-storage > slave_configure code? > > Yes. The patch below illustrates how. You'll have to change > the name of > the sdev flag to something sensible... > > I firmly believe this is the wrong approach, however. It's a > specific > solution to a general problem. I would much prefer to add a > new flag to > struct request. I totally agree. > > > Yeh, some other hardware might want lun inihibit in the > future, and that > > could still be added back, but IMHO black list is better. > > I'd say it's inevitable. And it may even end up being > standard-based, not > vendor/product based. Within a year from now, there are going to be USB devices natively supporting the SAT passthru CDB. Once this happens, its going to be CDB based and not vendor/product based on when to not mangle the CDB; chips from different vendors will support the CDB. The blacklist approach really isn't going to scale, where the flag approch will. Plus with a blacklist there would always be a lead time until a device with passthru supported works correctly under the kernel (blacklist update), where with a flag approach, support is automatic. Regards, Tim Thelin - : 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
