2011/12/14 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 09:14 +0530, Amit Sahrawat wrote: >> Just to add a thought - this issues is not related with ATA, this is >> primarily related with HDD's with a USB interface i.e., SCSI <-> USB. >> And, when I check my kernel config, CONFIG_ATA is not selected, >> libata-scsi - this gets compiled only in case CONFIG_ATA is on. >> Are these two things inter-related? > Hi. James. > OK, so what you're telling us is that you're trying to correct a > deficiency in a SATL inside a USB device? The device itself is ATA but > it doesn't use our libata connectors. > > I think in that case, the best way forwards is a mini-SATL correction > layer within USB storage. USB storage is certainly the place to > black/white list whether this should be done. ATA_16 is a bit of a > dangerous command to be throwing around because it's known to crash > various USB devices (and some old SCSI ones might even choke on it). Okay, how about make some option in Kconfig of scsi or usb storage to protect from the a bit of risk ATA_16 ? The user can select this option to use stable filesystem on USB HDD. > > depending on how big this SATL ends up being we should consider whether > it should share processing with the libata SATL. If it's just a single > mode sense, my instinct is that it's probably OK to implement separately > (however, you need to use the libata headers ... no duplication of > libata opcodes and status defines like you had in the original SCSI > patch). If there are more commands to correct on the way, it might be > better as shared code. I agree. I and Amit will check the best way between SATL or miniSATL in usb_storage accoding to your advice. > 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
