On 11/05/2009 09:41 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 10:29 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >> On 11/04/2009 07:50 PM, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 18:18 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: >>> >>> The point of checking is not to send a VPD inquiry to USB devices that >>> don't support it. These have a very limited range of supported VPD >>> pages. >>> >> >> OK thanks. But maybe just define a MIN_INQUIRY_SIZE instead of hard >> coded 32 everywhere, and use that. So in future if such a device is >> found we can easily change it. > > So the minimum inquiry size would actually be 36 ... from > scsi_scan.c ... and that's hard coded to a value too. > two wrongs don't make a right ;-) But yes, sorry, that's a wrong name. I meant minimum-vpd-page-inquiry, a specifc constant for that function we are talking about. >> (Never say never ;-)) > > I'm hoping that by the time USB devices get complex enough to need more > than 28 VPD pages, they've actually discovered what conforming to the > standards means. > I don't understand what your saying. I'm making a simple and sane point. A new comer, from looking at the API, will say "Haa I only need 12 bytes lets set that". But no the buffer has dual purpose, one get the page I want, but zero check these crap USB devices. (And all those other subtle things) So you are actually going to argue that a patch should introduce an hard coded 32 unexplained, and refuse a constant that actually communicates the issue, which also covers our asses from the hopes we make. Because I sure hope so too, but I'm also 48 years old. > James > > Boaz -- 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
