Yeah it said "One identification descriptor..." but not "Only one
identification descriptor...". So I suppose it is *alright* to also
return t10 designator in addition to the WWN. It's just redundunt and
unnecessary (and that's why I sent the patch), since we only need one
LU name (either derive fr
On 07/07/2016 02:40 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
> Well, udev uses its own `ata_id` (which issues IDENTIFY DEVICE through
> ATA PASS-THROUGH) though.
>
> Anyway I expected the reasoning you gave and I can't really argue with
> you. It's just personally I still prefer a cleaner SATL implementation
> (conside
Well, udev uses its own `ata_id` (which issues IDENTIFY DEVICE through
ATA PASS-THROUGH) though.
Anyway I expected the reasoning you gave and I can't really argue with
you. It's just personally I still prefer a cleaner SATL implementation
(considering Linux is open source and can be deemed as some
On 07/07/2016 12:12 AM, tom.t...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Tom Yan
>
> SAT (as of sat4r05f.pdf) only requires the t10 designator if the
> drive does not support/have WWN. Besides, we already have the ATA
> information VPD.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/
Hello.
On 7/7/2016 1:12 AM, tom.t...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Tom Yan
SAT (as of sat4r05f.pdf) only requires the t10 designator if the
drive does not support/have WWN. Besides, we already have the ATA
information VPD.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/at
From: Tom Yan
SAT (as of sat4r05f.pdf) only requires the t10 designator if the
drive does not support/have WWN. Besides, we already have the ATA
information VPD.
Signed-off-by: Tom Yan
diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
index 9f478ad..84b3d42 100644
--- a/driver
6 matches
Mail list logo
