underflow field
I received a recent report of the aic7xxx driver reporting:
(scsi0:A:0:0): CDB: 0x12 0x1 0x80 0x0 0x60 0x0 (scsi0:A:0:0): Saw underflow (80 of 96 bytes). Treated as error
This is because the aic7xxx driver (and the aic79xx driver) honors the underflow field. Has this field been deprecated and thus should be ignored by HBA drivers? If not, why is it that scsi_scan.c doesn't set underflow to 0 (or maybe 1 in this case) for commands that can have variable length responses? The above is a fetch of the serial number from VPD page 0x80.
--
Justin
Quoted 11 lines · Justin T. Gibbs
I received a recent report of the aic7xxx driver reporting:
(scsi0:A:0:0): CDB:
0x120x10x800x00x600x0(scsi0:A:0:0): Saw underflow (80 of 96 bytes). Treated as errorThis is because the aic7xxx driver (and the aic79xx driver) honors the underflow field. Has this field been deprecated and thus should be ignored by HBA drivers? If not, why is it that
scsi_scan.cdoesn't set underflow to 0 (or maybe 1 in this case) for commands that can have variable length responses? The above is a fetch of the serial number from VPD page0x80.
Because it was an oversight that needs fixing. When the VPD Inquiry code was added it should have had a correct underflow initializer and it doesn't look like it does.
Signature · 4 lines
Doug Ledford <[email protected]> 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606