On Sun, 3 May 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > The problem is we don't trust USB manufacturers with standards > > compliance any further than they could spit a rat, so we assume when > > they say they conform to SCSI-3 or above that they must have got it > > wrong and push it back down to SCSI-2. Indeed, we have run across a number of USB devices which claim to be SCSI-3 compliant and then crash when they receive a REPORT LUNS command. > > Because of this, no-one actually knows how many working SCSI-3 USB > > devices we might have supported. > > This is true. Suggestions for a better way to handle USB devices ... ? Is there any reason usb-storage shouldn't set the FORCELUNS flag for all devices not known to have only one LUN? Eric is trying to address two separate issues. One is bad or outdated wording of the Kconfig help text for SCSI_MULTI_LUN. The other is the fact that some USB devices can't be used to their full extent when the option isn't set, and people rolling their own configs (as opposed to using a distro kernel) tend not to enable it. Maybe changing the help text will be enough for both problems. As for future treatment of USB devices claiming SCSI-3 compliance (or above), I don't know. Keep the field unchanged but set a flag to rule out the use of REPORT LUNS? Alan Stern -- 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
