On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:43:25PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, Matthew Hall wrote: > > > > I can't see any reasonable way of fixing this problem. Even if Linux > > > did settle for the READ CAPACITY(10) value, it would then think that > > > the drive was only 2 TB. > > > > <blasphemous_hack> > > > > What about a quirk which gets the blocksize from the smaller commands and > > combines with the device size from the larger command? > > It's not quite that simple. The trace showed that two different > commands gave the right block size, and we don't know which one Windows > believed. I suppose we could figure out the answer to that. > > It might work. But the only justification would be "That's the way > Windows does it"... which might not be strong enough. Especially since > different versions of Windows might do it in different ways. > > > </blasphemous_hack> How about a dummy read which only can work when you've discovered the size correctly? You noticed one failed right that occurred due to the mismatch in the block size. > Alan Stern Matthew. -- 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
