On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> I think everyone in this thread needs to read the last instance of
> this same thread, the first time it came up.
>
> I believe the general consensus was to send the 6, and if it failed,
> retry with the 10, and set a flag so that subsequent requests we
"Kenneth D. Merry" wrote:
> The right way to handle the 6/10 byte stuff is to have it be a function of
> the transport type (see the CAM_NEW_TRAN_CODE stuff). The peripheral
> drivers and userland applications can query the transport type and send
> 6 or 10 byte commands as appropriate.
>
> If w
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:46:14 +0200, Thomas Quinot wrote:
> Le 2002-08-17, Nate Lawson écrivait :
>
> > I'm working on cleaning up quirk entries in scsi_da.c, especially ones
> > related to READ/WRITE 6->10 escalation. For those just joining in, there
> > is a function (cmd6workaround) that h
Le 2002-08-17, Nate Lawson écrivait :
> I'm working on cleaning up quirk entries in scsi_da.c, especially ones
> related to READ/WRITE 6->10 escalation. For those just joining in, there
> is a function (cmd6workaround) that handles a R/W6 error by translating
> the cdb to 10 bytes and restarting
I'm working on cleaning up quirk entries in scsi_da.c, especially ones
related to READ/WRITE 6->10 escalation. For those just joining in, there
is a function (cmd6workaround) that handles a R/W6 error by translating
the cdb to 10 bytes and restarting it. It also increases the command size
that w
