RE: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Don't pass ATA_16 commandto the host

[KY Srinivasan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 9:49 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Haiyang Zhang
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Don't pass ATA_16 command to
> the host
> 
> On Sun, 2012-03-04 at 14:23 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:12 AM
> > > To: KY Srinivasan
> > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ohering@xxxxxxxx;
> > > jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > Haiyang Zhang
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Don't pass ATA_16 command to
> > > the host
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:49:07PM -0800, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > Windows hosts don't handle the ATA_16 command; don't pass it to the
> host.
> > >
> > > Most devices don't handle it, and answer with and unsupported opcode
> > > sense reason.  If hyperv iis buggy enough to crap out on it please add
> > > a comment explaining that.
> >
> > The host does not "crap out", it does return an error code but it is not
> "unsupported opcode".
> > The sense reason that comes back is a generic error SRB_STATUS code. It is
> easier for me to filter the
> > command on the outgoing side as opposed to dealing with a generic error code
> that is coming back from
> > the host.
> 
> That's the wrong thing to do ... you need to unwrap the error code.

I will see if this is even possible based on the current error codes I get back.

> The reason being I presume it's not impossible for Windows to host a
> device supporting ATA_16 and there are signs that this is going to be
> necessary to prevent data corruption on some USB devices ... if you just
> filter the command without checking if the host supports it, you're
> going to end up perpetuating the corruption problem.

We are talking of virtual  block devices exposed to Linux guests running on a Windows
hosts. I don't think they will ever need to support ATA_16 command on these virtual block
devices. I will however confirm with the Windows team.


Regards,

K. Y

N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨è­Ú&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i