On Wed, 4 Jul 2012, James Bottomley wrote: > > The reason for the try_rc_10_first flag is that some devices return > > bogus data in response to RC16. Like, an 800 GB device claiming to > > have 3 exabytes. > > So we could easily send both and only believe RC10 if the device is > under 2TB. More precisely, if RC10 indicates the device is under 2 TB then ignore the RC16 capacity. Or maybe issue a warning if it disagrees with the RC10 capacity. > However, what about all the extra flags we read out of RC16, > like trim, large sector size and DIF capability? If the device lies > about its capacity, won't we get bogus values for those as well, which > is going to cause other screw ups? That seems quite likely. I don't know the answer for any individual cases, however. For the greatest safety, I suppose we could disbelieve all the fields in the RC16 response if the RC16 capacity disagrees with the RC10 capacity and the RC10 capacity is under 2 TB. 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
