So far the T10 Base feature set proposal has not been restating requirements already required by the core standards - it's just upgrading "mays" and "shoulds" to "shalls". Should we also include a list of "shall" rules like this that have had known violations in the past? > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, 07 March, 2013 11:31 AM > To: Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) > Cc: Jeremy Linton; Rob Evers; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxx; bvanassche@xxxxxxx; emilne@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] Encapsulate scsi_do_report_luns > > On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 17:01 +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) > wrote: > > Good point; INQUIRY, REPORT LUNS, REQUEST SENSE, and NOTIFY DATA > > TRANSFER DEVICE do not report unit attention conditions. > > Well, yes they do, at least on several devices I have here. > > Can I point out again that we can't code to SAM ... we have to code to > what already exists. SAM is useful as a guideline, but it isn't gospel. > In particular where the real world does something SAM says it shouldn't > (like sending UA to INQUIRY), we have to go with the real world. > > This also means we can't go through the linux SCSI subsystem changing > behaviour based on what SAM says the behaviour should be. Most of what > the SCSI subsystem does is an accumulation based on years of trying to > fix it for annoying and out of spec devices. > > 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
