On 03/15/2016 06:19 PM, Douglas Gilbert wrote: > On 16-03-15 08:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:28:42AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> But it feels even sillier having to whitelist every >>> standards-conformant device here; I certainly was when I figured >>> that EMC Clariion won't work properly without this patch. >>> >>> And the idea was to mark off _misbehaving_ drives, not the other way >>> round. >> >> It's the idea, but it has to prove workable as well in the end. >> >> That being said I'd prefer to allow Hannes patch in and see what >> the fallout is. > > I don't have many drafts archived for SPC-2 but the two that I do have: > spc2r18.pdf [20000521] > spc2r20.pdf [20010718] > > indicate that those two VPD pages were made mandatory right at the > end of the draft cycle for SPC-2. spc2r20.pdf was the last draft > prior to the standard and it does show them as mandatory in table 185 > on page 218. The corresponding table in spc2r18.pdf does not have > a column indicating whether the listed VPD pages are mandatory or > not (or words that I can find in the description of VPD pages 0x0 > and 0x83 to suggest they are mandatory). > The point here is not so much whether the pages are mandatory, but whether access to VPD pages crashes the device. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- 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
