On 08/18/2017 02:57 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/18/17 02:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 08/17/17 22:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 08/04/17 12:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/08/2017 10:36, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> The LUN0 emulation is just that, an emulation for a non-existing
> LU
On 08/18/17 02:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/17/17 22:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 08/04/17 12:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2017 10:36, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
The LUN0 emulation is just that, an emulation for a non-existing
LUN0. So we should be returning LUN_NOT_SUPPORTED for
On 08/17/17 22:57, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 08/04/17 12:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 04/08/2017 10:36, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> The LUN0 emulation is just that, an emulation for a non-existing
>>> LUN0. So we should be returning LUN_NOT_SUPPORTED for any request
>>> coming from any other LUN.
>
On 08/04/17 12:49, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/08/2017 10:36, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> The LUN0 emulation is just that, an emulation for a non-existing
>> LUN0. So we should be returning LUN_NOT_SUPPORTED for any request
>> coming from any other LUN.
>> And we should be aborting unhandled command
On 04/08/2017 10:36, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> The LUN0 emulation is just that, an emulation for a non-existing
> LUN0. So we should be returning LUN_NOT_SUPPORTED for any request
> coming from any other LUN.
> And we should be aborting unhandled commands with INVALID OPCODE,
> not LUN NOT SUPPORTED
