RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] [SCSI] Make LBP quirk skip lbpme checks tests

[KY Srinivasan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley [mailto:jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 1:03 PM
> To: KY Srinivasan
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; sitsofe@xxxxxxxxx;
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> ohering@xxxxxxxx; gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] [SCSI] Make LBP quirk skip lbpme checks tests
> 
> On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 19:05 +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin K. Petersen [mailto:martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:03 PM
> > > To: KY Srinivasan
> > > Cc: Martin K. Petersen; Sitsofe Wheeler; Christoph Hellwig;
> > > gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ohering@xxxxxxxx; apw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx; jbottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] [SCSI] Make LBP quirk skip lbpme checks
> > > tests
> > >
> > > >>>>> "KY" == KY Srinivasan <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > KY,
> > >
> > > KY> "At the time thin-provisioning was defined, the discovery
> > > KY> information was first proposed in READ CAPACITY 16 command. And
> > > then
> > > KY> moved into the new dedicated VPD page - B2h. You can see the
> > > KY> information reported in this VPD page is richer than READ
> > > KY> CAPACITY
> > > KY> 16 command. As this transition happened during we added the
> > > KY> feature, Windows uses the newer method that based on VPD page
> > > KY> B2h. It looks Linux tries to use both new and old method which is
> weird to me."
> > >
> > > The READ CAPACITY(16) response is not optional.
> >
> > Ok; that settles the issue then. I will attempt to get it fixed on Windows.
> 
> Like Martin says, this isn't optional either/or; it's mandatory to support the RC
> 16 bits.  If you don't want to get into playing the messenger between us and
> the windows guys on SCSI standards, we'd be happy to communicate
> directly, either by email or a phone meeting.

Thanks James. I will take up your offer if needed.

Regards,

K. Y
N‹§²æ¸›yú²X¬¶ÇvØ–)Þ{.nlj·¥Š{±‘êX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨¾«‘êZ+€Êzf£¢·hšˆ§~†­†Ûÿû®w¥¢¸?™¨è&¢)ßf”ùy§m…á«a¶Úÿ0¶ìå