On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:33:31AM -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:52:51 +0100
> > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > +What: Low Performance USB Block driver ("CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB")
> > > +When: 3.6
> >
> > ACK
> >
> > > + does not use libusual which holds various workarounds for
> > > + certain buggy devices.
> >
> > Although the above is false, and ub actually started libusual,
> > I don't mind. It's a transient notice anyway. Once ub is gone,
> > libusual can be folded back into usb-storage.
>
> There might be an miss understanding here. For instance in
> drivers/usb/storage/unusual_devs.h we have an entry like:
>
> |UNUSUAL_DEV( 0x03f0, 0x4002, 0x0001, 0x0001,
> | "HP",
> | "PhotoSmart R707",
> | USB_SC_DEVICE, USB_PR_DEVICE, NULL, US_FL_FIX_CAPACITY),
> |
>
> That US_FL_FIX_CAPACITY is used later in scsiglue.c to set sdev->fix_capacity
> which is then used by sd_read_capacity() to substract one sector from the
> final size.
> In ub I see ub_sync_read_cap() and I don't see a change. Was my wording wrong
> or is this something else?
Pete wasn't talking about the phrase "holds various workarounds...".
Rather, he was referring to the phrase "does not use libusual". That
part is wrong; ub _does_ use libusual.
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
