On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Luben Tuikov wrote: > --- On Wed, 3/23/11, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > No. It means I'll submit a new version of the > > $SUBJECT patch (which in > > fact I have already done), > > I just saw it and acked it. Thank you. > > > 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. > > > > True; my patches catch that case. They prevent a > > second MODE SENSE > > command from being sent if it would ask for less data than > > the first > > command has already asked for. > > By "that" case you mean asking for less data than already asked for. You don't mean "parsing the MOSE SENSE data for any len correctly". Correct. > Indeed, there is no point in asking for _less_ data than already asked for, as the loop I included in my topic patch, 24d720b726c1a85f1962831ac30ad4d2ef8276b1, will parse that data correctly. Exactly. 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
