Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:37:44 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Quirk for this? Message-ID: <45E35328.7040700@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20070226.133739.74686216.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <7579f7fb0702252331m7d3a61c5u224d898b4f04248c@mail.gmail.com> <45E3092A.5040404@samsco.org> <7579f7fb0702261041ld6f4a09q732bbbc419cf1c73@mail.gmail.com> <20070226.133739.74686216.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh wrote: >> It may be a property specific to USB devices, but the code affected is >> a property of the end target at the end of a transport, not the >> transport itself. > > The transport already does so much futzing with the scsi > request/replies that go down to the device that one more wouldn't be > so horrible and would confine this brain-damage to the devices that > have it... > > Warner Strongly agreed. If the fudging only needed to happen at the READ_CAPACITY that is done for device creation in GEOM then having it be in the da driver would be appropriate. But since it needs to happen for all READ_CAPACITY requests, it's much better to have it isolated in the umass driver. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45E35328.7040700>