On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 13:00 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > --- usb-2.6.orig/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > > +++ usb-2.6/drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c
> > > @@ -602,6 +602,13 @@ static int scsi_probe_lun(struct scsi_de
> > > (sshdr.ascq == 0))
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Additional Length and Vendor fields missing
> > > + * probably means nothing was transferred. Try again.
> > > + */
> > > + if (inq_result[4] == 0 && inq_result[8] == 0)
> > > + continue;
> >
> > Really, no.
> >
> > A legitimate minimal response from a device is zero in the additional
> > length field. If it does that, then the vendor field is bound to be
> > zero as well.
> >
> > About the best we can do is check the first four fields. For them to be
> > all zero, it would have to be a minimal response SCSI-1 device (RDF of
> > zero) ... hopefully they're all dead by now.
>
> Then you're saying that the patch should everything up to
> inq_result[8]? Or maybe even beyond? I can do that. Would that be
> acceptable?
No ... "first four fields" means everything up to inq_result[3].
Anything beyond that would be legitimately zero if they were.
James
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
