Christoph,
> Normally we'd just pass the scsi_sense_hdr structure in from the caler
> if we care about sense data. Is this something you considered?
>
> Otherwise this looks fine to me.
I agree with Christoph that passing the sense header would be more
consistent with the rest of the SCSI code.
On 05/05/2017 11:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Normally we'd just pass the scsi_sense_hdr structure in from the
caler if we care about sense data. Is this something you considered?
Not really as only the sense_key field is needed for only one call to
sd_sync_cache() (out of two).
Otherwise t
Normally we'd just pass the scsi_sense_hdr structure in from the
caler if we care about sense data. Is this something you considered?
Otherwise this looks fine to me.
On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 11:43 +0200, Thierry Escande wrote:
> From: Derek Basehore
>
> Some external hard drives don't support the sync command even though the
> hard drive has write cache enabled. In this case, upon suspend request,
> sync cache failures are ignored if the error code in the sense
From: Derek Basehore
Some external hard drives don't support the sync command even though the
hard drive has write cache enabled. In this case, upon suspend request,
sync cache failures are ignored if the error code in the sense header is
ILLEGAL_REQUEST. There's not much we can do for these driv
5 matches
Mail list logo
