On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:58:40AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > Alan, what do you think ? I definitely don't like Ben E's most recent > > patch with a quirk for all devices, it's simply a lot more code for > > something that will come back and bite again when somebody does the > > same mistake again. I'd rather have the request sense code be more > > robust. But this patch is fine, as was my previous one. > > I agree that it seems silly to have a flag _for_ SANE_SENSE and another > flag _against_ SANE_SENSE. Retrying seems easier and more robust. Dualing flags, where one is auto-set and the other quirked, is almost guaranteed to get us into a maintance nightmare. > > So it boils down on clearing SANE_SENSE vs. not clearing it. If we > > clear it, we probably want to keep it cleared (via an INSANE_SENSE > > flag ?). But on the other hand, I don't think that always going > > for a retry when a SANE_SENSE fails is going to hurt and sounds > > like the robust thing to do, so I don't mind that simple patch > > from Ben. So up to you :-) > > I agree; it won't hurt much and only if the device is buggy to begin > with. I agree; the extra retry is more robust, more straightforward, and more maintainable long-term. Matt -- Matthew Dharm Home: mdharm-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver My mother not mind to die for stoppink Windows NT! She is rememberink Stalin! -- Pitr User Friendly, 9/6/1998
Attachment:
pgpeZhw9hovQm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
