From: David Laight
>
> From: Norman Diamond
> ...
>> By the way, I've seen some USB bridges that lie about whether they
>> performed various SAT commands (ATA passthrough), but told the truth
>> about performing an ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE through SAT. So we could attempt
>> ATA passthrough with a
From: Norman Diamond
...
> By the way, I've seen some USB bridges that lie about whether they
> performed various SAT commands (ATA passthrough), but told the truth
> about performing an ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE through SAT. So we could attempt
> ATA passthrough with an IDENTIFY DEVICE command, and if
If READ_CAPACITY_10 returns something that looks valid but might be off
by a multiple of 2TB, and READ_CAPACITY_16 fails, what do we really want
to do when we read the partition table?
If the partition table indicates that everything fits in the capacity
returned by READ_CAPACITY_10, great, it is
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> There is one thing that seems like it might be a problem: We have to
> ensure that the SCSI driver can read the partition tables (in the
> standard locations) even if it doesn't know how big the disk is.
A DOS partition table is stored in the first 512
> From: James Bottomley
>
> We really don't want to make the decision within the kernel of whether
> we believe the partition size or the disk capacity. For these disk
> problems we need it to be the former, but if we choose that always,
> we'll get weird results on mispartitioned devices.
>
>
> From: "Theodore Ts'o"
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:07:48PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > OK, but I still don't understand how windows gets the partition table on
> > there in the first place ... that must surely be some sort of guess the
> > disk size hack.
>
> 99% of the time the p
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > From: Alan Stern
>
> > I posted a patch to allow the user to override the reported capacity:
> >
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=140993840113445&w=2
>
> I see the patch, and I feel confident I could install it if I needed
> to. What comma
On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 17:08 +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Boaz Harrosh
> > On 11/06/2014 05:53 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > >> But just the simple case of read-capacity failure should we then?
> > >
> > > That's a separate question. As far as I know, the case you are
> > > describing has not com
From: Boaz Harrosh
> On 11/06/2014 05:53 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> >> But just the simple case of read-capacity failure should we then?
> >
> > That's a separate question. As far as I know, the case you are
> > describing has not come up.
> >
>
> BTW: what we should do is when the partition parser
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 05:54 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > We don't have a failure. This is the problem. Determining that a
> > problem exists
> >
>
> OK Sorry. I assumed the bridge is smart enough to do nothing,
>
> ie READ_CAPACITY_10 is passed as is
On 11/06/2014 05:53 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> But just the simple case of read-capacity failure should we then?
>
> That's a separate question. As far as I know, the case you are
> describing has not come up.
>
BTW: what we should do is when the partition parser at the block layer
see that the
On 11/06/2014 05:54 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> We don't have a failure. This is the problem. Determining that a
> problem exists
>
OK Sorry. I assumed the bridge is smart enough to do nothing,
ie READ_CAPACITY_10 is passed as is via sata to the device that
actually supports READ_CAPACITY
On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 12:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > We really don't want to make the decision within the kernel of whether
> > we believe the partition size or the disk capacity. For these disk
> > problems we need it to be the former, but if we choose t
On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 16:33 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 12:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 11:30 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:34:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> Sorry, meant to. In principle I'm OK with this as the leve
On 11/06/2014 12:30 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 11:30 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:34:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
Sorry, meant to. In principle I'm OK with this as the lever for the
hack (largely because it means we don't need to
On Wed, 2014-11-05 at 11:30 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:34:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > Sorry, meant to. In principle I'm OK with this as the lever for the
> > > hack (largely because it means we don't need to do anything) but will
> > > the distributions su
> From: Alan Stern
> I posted a patch to allow the user to override the reported capacity:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=140993840113445&w=2
I see the patch, and I feel confident I could install it if I needed
to. What command do I execute to "write to the capacity_override
attrib
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 11:34:11AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > Sorry, meant to. In principle I'm OK with this as the lever for the
> > hack (largely because it means we don't need to do anything) but will
> > the distributions support it?
>
> While I can't speak for the distributions, it's reaso
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:07:48PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> OK, but I still don't understand how windows gets the partition table on
> there in the first place ... that must surely be some sort of guess the
> disk size hack.
99% of the time the partition table was provided by the drive
m
On 11/05/2014 06:34 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
<>
>
> It's simpler than that: The drive is attached directly to the computer
> (i.e., via SATA rather than USB) when the partition table is created.
> With no USB-SATA bridge chip to mess things up, there's no problem
> determining the correct capacity.
On Wed, 5 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:14 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > > > Was there any resolution as to how large disk drives would be handled
> > > >
On Tue, 2014-11-04 at 11:14 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > > Was there any resolution as to how large disk drives would be handled
> > > if their interface did not support the "capacity" reque
Replying to two messages at once:
> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 11:14:39 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Stern
> cc: "Dale R. Worley" , ,
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > > Was there any resolution as to how large di
On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > Was there any resolution as to how large disk drives would be handled
> > if their interface did not support the "capacity" request that would
> > tell how large they were?
>
> Realistically
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 16:06 -0500, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Was there any resolution as to how large disk drives would be handled
> if their interface did not support the "capacity" request that would
> tell how large they were?
Realistically no ... unless someone comes up with a reliable heuristic
25 matches
Mail list logo
