This looks reasonable to me. Martin, and objections?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:40:37PM +0300, Dolev Raviv wrote:
> From: Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthu...@codeaurora.org>
>
> The SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE command is a medium write command and hence can
> fail when the device is write protected. Avoid sending such commands by
> making sure that write-cache-enable is disabled even though the device
> claim to support it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthu...@codeaurora.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dolev Raviv <dra...@codeaurora.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index 3663e38..67282bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ cache_type_store(struct device *dev, struct
> device_attribute *attr,
> if (ct < 0)
> return -EINVAL;
> rcd = ct & 0x01 ? 1 : 0;
> - wce = ct & 0x02 ? 1 : 0;
> + wce = (ct & 0x02) && !sdkp->write_prot ? 1 : 0;
>
> if (sdkp->cache_override) {
> sdkp->WCE = wce;
> @@ -2493,6 +2493,10 @@ sd_read_cache_type(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, unsigned
> char *buffer)
> sdkp->DPOFUA = 0;
> }
>
> + /* No cache flush allowed for write protected devices */
> + if (sdkp->WCE && sdkp->write_prot)
> + sdkp->WCE = 0;
> +
> if (sdkp->first_scan || old_wce != sdkp->WCE ||
> old_rcd != sdkp->RCD || old_dpofua != sdkp->DPOFUA)
> sd_printk(KERN_NOTICE, sdkp,
> --
> 1.8.5.2
> --
> QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
---end quoted text---
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
