Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 10:14 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:

> There are three possibilities: nothing, your proposed patch, and a new

Nothing is feasible only if Windows uses READ_CAPACITY_10.

> quirk flag.  The flag is safest, but also the hardest to maintain.

Again the same answer.

> > I think we can be sure that no drive enclosure will crash
> > with READ_CAPACITY_16.
> 
> I wouldn't count on it, but I don't know of any examples.
> 
> > I am not sure about card readers.
> 
> Or flash drives.
> 
> > Does anybody know what Windows does?
> 
> Not me.  It probably varies with different versions of Windows.

I'll try to get a Windows machine for a trace.
Can you suggest a tracer for Win7?

	Regards
		Oliver



--
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux