--- On Wed, 3/23/11, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reverting the original patch for now is fine with me. You mean my patch? This commit: 24d720b726c1a85f1962831ac30ad4d2ef8276b1. > As for the next > merge window, let me submit a more bullet-proof version of > the second > patch. How can you submit a "more bullet-proof" version of the second patch without the "first", which would be my topic patch I assume? This one: 24d720b726c1a85f1962831ac30ad4d2ef8276b1. Does this mean you'll resubmit my topic patch as your own and roll your minor patch with it? > It's possible that some wierd USB device will report that > more than 192 > bytes of mode-sense data is available and then fail when > the host asks > for the reported amount. You'd think no device could > be that stupid, If by "fail" you mean "crash", then yes, that's bad. However, the device may return less data. The while loop of my patch, 24d720b726c1a85f1962831ac30ad4d2ef8276b1, will correctly parse the returned less data. > but I have seen an example of a device doing exactly this > (except that > it was for INQUIRY data rather than MODE SENSE data -- > which is perhaps > even worse!). -- 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
