On 11/01/2016 09:49, Peter Lieven wrote:
> > +if (task != NULL && task->status == SCSI_STATUS_CHECK_CONDITION
> > +&& task->sense.key == SCSI_SENSE_UNIT_ATTENTION) {
> > +break;
> > +}
>
> Paolo, Ronnie, do you know what Readcapacity(10) ret
Am 07.01.2016 um 11:07 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>
> On 06/01/2016 18:57, John Snow wrote:
>> Ronnie: Thanks for the explanation!
>>
>> Zhu: In light of this, can the patch be reworked slightly to explicitly
>> check *why* READCAPACITY16 failed and only attempt the READCAPACITY10 as
>> a fallback if i
On 06/01/2016 18:57, John Snow wrote:
> Ronnie: Thanks for the explanation!
>
> Zhu: In light of this, can the patch be reworked slightly to explicitly
> check *why* READCAPACITY16 failed and only attempt the READCAPACITY10 as
> a fallback if it receives INVALID_OPCODE?
>
> If it fails for any
On 01/05/2016 02:57 PM, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> MMC devices:
> READ CAPACITY 10 support is mandatory.
> No support for READ CAPACITY 16
>
> SBC devices:
> READ CAPACITY 10 is mandatory
> READ CAPACITY 16 support is only required when you have thin
> provisioning or protection information (or if
MMC devices:
READ CAPACITY 10 support is mandatory.
No support for READ CAPACITY 16
SBC devices:
READ CAPACITY 10 is mandatory
READ CAPACITY 16 support is only required when you have thin provisioning
or protection information (or if the device is >2^32 blocks)
Almost all, but apparently not all,
On 12/28/2015 10:32 PM, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> When play with Dell MD3000 target, for sure it
> is a TYPE_DISK, but readcapacity16 would fail.
> Then we find that readcapacity10 succeeded. It
> looks like the target just support readcapacity10
> even through it is a TYPE_DISK or have some
> TYPE_R
