From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 7 12:32:37 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from freebsd.dk (freebsd.dk [212.242.42.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0E6157CC for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sos@freebsd.dk) Received: (from sos@localhost) by freebsd.dk (8.9.1/8.9.1) id VAA06379; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:31:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sos) From: Soren Schmidt Message-Id: <199906071931.VAA06379@freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: wfd.c and ATAPI Zip In-Reply-To: from "Chris D. Faulhaber" at "Jun 7, 1999 3: 4:33 pm" To: jedgar@fxp.org (Chris D. Faulhaber) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:31:34 +0200 (CEST) Cc: mike@smith.net.au, junichi@junichi.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG It seems Chris D. Faulhaber wrote: > > I have an off-brand (NEC) Zip Drive with: > > which does have buggy firmware; I also have another one with: > > that has no problem when I remove the 64 block limitation. > > In this case, I would use strncmp instead of strcmp to test the first 27 > characters. > > So what you are saying is that we are limiting all Zip drives instead of > being based solely on firmware revision? Any reason for that? Hmm, well in the atapi-fd driver in the new ata/atapi system I only check for !strncmp(atp->atapi_parm->model, "IOMEGA ZIP", 11) which is even more pessimistic. However the overhead added here is small compared to the general speed of the ZIP drive, so its not a problem. -Søren To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message