On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Dainius Masiliūnas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It is used for preventing the kernel from issuing a READ CAPACITY(16) > > command to the device. Normally the kernel would do this if the reply > > to READ CAPACITY(10) indicated there were more than 2^32 blocks (about > > 2 TB). > > Ah, OK, that makes sense. Though that's still not a proper solution, > and if anything it's confusing for the users: if they plug in a >2 TiB > drive and it breaks, the user will assume that it's the fault of the > drive and not the USB case, or that the case is incapable of handling > such large drives, whereas the true reason is completely different. I'm not sure what you mean. If the quirk flag is set and the user plugs in a >2-TB drive, it won't break. It just won't report the correct size, but at least it will continue to work in a degraded fashion. > > In theory, I suppose we could change the kernel so that it would > > default to READ CAPACITY(16) for devices that report a SCSI level >= 3, > > or something along those lines. In general we hesitate to make changes > > of this sort, because they almost always end up breaking _some_ > > devices -- and if that happens then the change is reverted, with no > > exceptions. Linus has a very strict rule about not breaking working > > systems. > > Well, the problems are 1) we don't really know how many such > misbehaving drives there are, since only those with >2 TiB drives > experience it, thus it's hard to know what effect such change would > have, and 2) there is no way to make the kernel output the true value > even if you know your drive is working fine. We could add that easily enough: a usb-storage quirk to set the NEEDS_CAP16 flag. But it would be better if this wasn't necessary. > And when a drive breaks due to the 16 command, is there a way to > revive it, perhaps by trying to reconnect? That would allow the kernel > to try it first, see that it failed after that command was sent, then > issue a warning in the log saying that this device should have a > quirk, reset and continue with the quirk applied. I'm not sure what you mean by "trying to reconnect". The recovery method most likely to work is to unplug the USB cable and then re-attach it. Issuing a reset might work in some cases and not in others; we have seen examples of devices that crash extremely hard when given something they don't know how to handle. > Also, is `sg_readcap -16` a proper test to determine whether the > device works as expected? You mean, to determine whether the device can handle a READ CAPACITY(16) command? Yes, since that is the command it sends. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
