[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46949541.4040206@itg.hitachi.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:30:57 +0900
From: Piotr Muszynski <piotr@....hitachi.co.jp>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: REQUEST_SENSE and ide-cd.c
I am adding transparent ATAPI capability to USB gadget Mass Storage
driver. The idea is to pass USB traffic to block device queue as packet
requests. At the end of the queue, the requests are handled by ide-cd.c
driver.
It breaks when the ide-cd.c driver unconditionally generates
REQUEST_SENSE for requests that ended in unit attention condition.
By clearing the drive's unit attention condition, this additional
REQUEST_SENSE confuses the host, which fires it's own REQUEST_SENSE
packet, to which the drive replies with NO SENSE.
I can see three solutions:
1. Intercept the sense data returned by ide-cd.c and emulate unit
attention condition in file_storage.c driver;
2. Introduce a new request flag causing ide-cd.c to skip calling
cdrom_queue_request_sense() for flagged requests, like below:
cdrom_decode_status() 2.6.12:
- if (stat & ERR_STAT) {
+ if (stat & ERR_STAT && !(rq->flags & REQ_NO_AUTOSENSE)) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags);
blkdev_dequeue_request(rq);
HWGROUP(drive)->rq = NULL;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags);
cdrom_queue_request_sense(drive, rq->sense, rq);
} else
cdrom_end_request(drive, 0);
3. Acknowledge that ide-cd.c was not meant to work as in (2) and search
for another mechanism. Where?
(1) would unnecessarily duplicate the drive's state. I'd rather do (3).
So far, the (2) works well, but how bad is it?
I'd greatly appreciate any critical feedback.
TIA,
Piotr Muszynski
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists