Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-16 Thread Oliver Neukum
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 07:47 +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 09/11/2013 04:14 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > >> I think we can be sure that no drive enclosure will crash > >> with READ_CAPACITY_16. > > > > I wouldn't count on it, but I don't know of any ex

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 09/10/2013 03:56 PM, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that > HS devices may also need this feature, which would require > a quirk. Does this mean that the patch is acceptable only > with an additional predefined quirk, or do you insist

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 09/11/2013 04:14 PM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > >> On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 13:25 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: >>> Hi Hannes, you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that HS devices ma

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Steve Magnani
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 11:42 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > I'll try to get a Windows machine for a trace. > > Can you suggest a tracer for Win7? > > I don't know of any, offhand. Maybe Google can help. > > Alternatively, you could install Windows 7

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Alan Stern
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 10:14 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > There are three possibilities: nothing, your proposed patch, and a new > > Nothing is feasible only if Windows uses READ_CAPACITY_10. It seems clear that your patch isn't feasible either, as i

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Oliver Neukum
On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 10:14 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > There are three possibilities: nothing, your proposed patch, and a new Nothing is feasible only if Windows uses READ_CAPACITY_10. > quirk flag. The flag is safest, but also the hardest to maintain. Again the same answer. > > I think we ca

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-11 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 13:25 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > > > you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that > > > HS devices may also need this feature, which would req

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-10 Thread Oliver Neukum
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 13:25 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > > Hi Hannes, > > > > you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that > > HS devices may also need this feature, which would require > > a quirk. Does this mean that the patch is accept

Re: READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-10 Thread Alan Stern
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that > HS devices may also need this feature, which would require > a quirk. Does this mean that the patch is acceptable only > with an additional predefined quirk, or do you insist t

READ_CAPACITY_16 vs. READ_CAPACITY_10

2013-09-10 Thread Oliver Neukum
Hi Hannes, you objected to this patch saying there's a possibilty that HS devices may also need this feature, which would require a quirk. Does this mean that the patch is acceptable only with an additional predefined quirk, or do you insist that all devices be handled with quirks? Regard