Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:12:03 -0500 | From | Oliver Xymoron <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cdrom sane fallback vs 2.4.20-pre1 |
| |
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:12:44PM -0600, Erik Andersen wrote: > On Mon Aug 12, 2002 at 11:58:26PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Erik Andersen wrote: > > > > > +++ drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c Sun Aug 11 15:37:24 2002 > > > @@ -1916,6 +1916,7 @@ > > > { > > > struct cdrom_device_ops *cdo = cdi->ops; > > > struct cdrom_generic_command cgc; > > > + struct request_sense sense; > > > kdev_t dev = cdi->dev; > > > char buffer[32]; > > > int ret = 0; > > > @@ -1951,9 +1952,11 @@ > > > cgc.buffer = (char *) kmalloc(blocksize, GFP_KERNEL); > > > if (cgc.buffer == NULL) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > + memset(&sense, 0, sizeof(sense)); > > > + cgc.sense = &sense; > > > cgc.data_direction = CGC_DATA_READ; > > > ret = cdrom_read_block(cdi, &cgc, lba, 1, format, blocksize); > > > - if (ret) { > > > + if (ret && sense.sense_key==0x05 && sense.asc==0x20 && sense.ascq==0x00) { > > > > Do you really need to hardcode this values ? > > This allows it to falls back to READ_10 only when the drive > reports "Hey! You gave me an invalid command!" which is the one > and only case when a fall back to READ_10 is appropriate. I am > not aware of any other reason for which a fallback to READ_10 is > useful.
A comment to that effect would be useful. Not so much the interpretation of the numbers (which are easy enough to look up) but the rationale.
-- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |