On 29.06.22 16:30, Alan Stern wrote: > Historically the problem goes the other way: Lots of devices used to > report a total size that was one logical block _larger_ than their > actual capacity. This was caused by the firmware authors > misunderstanding the READ CAPACITY command, which is supposed to return > the block number of the last logical block -- but instead they would > return the total number of logical blocks, which is one higher (since > the first block is number 0). > > Nowadays most devices seem to sorted this out. It looks like you found > one that makes the opposite mistake: The value it reports is one less > than the last block number. > > It is definitely a bug in the caddy. On the other hand, this bug > probably doesn't affect the rest of the caddy's operations. Or alternatively, the caddy is marked as quirky by mistake. In that case we need the descriptors of your device to compare it to the list of quirky devices. Could you provide "lsusb -v"? Regards Oliver
