Message ID | fb8d4f70910260636j74e11d89o9ad1fe274f98421f@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > According to SCSI-2 specification, > http://ldkelley.com/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2-08.html#8.2.5 , > "if the allocation length of the command descriptor block (CDB) is too > small to transfer > all of the parameters, the additional length shall not be adjusted to > reflect the truncation." > The 36 mandatory bytes of response are written to outbuf, and then > only the length requested > in CDB is transferred. > > Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@gmail.com> > This patch is whitespace damaged. Regards, Anthony Liguori
2009/10/27 Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>: > Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >> >> According to SCSI-2 specification, >> http://ldkelley.com/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2-08.html#8.2.5 , >> "if the allocation length of the command descriptor block (CDB) is too >> small to transfer >> all of the parameters, the additional length shall not be adjusted to >> reflect the truncation." >> The 36 mandatory bytes of response are written to outbuf, and then >> only the length requested >> in CDB is transferred. >> >> Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@gmail.com> >> > > This patch is whitespace damaged. Also the attached one? I tried to keep the original identation: used tabs where the tabs originally were.
2009/10/27 Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@googlemail.com>: > 2009/10/27 Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>: >> Artyom Tarasenko wrote: >>> >>> According to SCSI-2 specification, >>> http://ldkelley.com/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2/SCSI2-08.html#8.2.5 , >>> "if the allocation length of the command descriptor block (CDB) is too >>> small to transfer >>> all of the parameters, the additional length shall not be adjusted to >>> reflect the truncation." >>> The 36 mandatory bytes of response are written to outbuf, and then >>> only the length requested >>> in CDB is transferred. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Artyom Tarasenko <atar4qemu@gmail.com> >>> >> >> This patch is whitespace damaged. > > Also the attached one? I tried to keep the original indentation: used > tabs where the tabs originally were. What is actually the indentation policy for patches? Should they be conform with CODING_STYLE even if the original code isn't? If they are conform the code may look badly indented with any tab settings, including the ones from the original author. If they keep author's indentation, the code still may look badly indented with the CODING_STYLE tab settings. Should patches for badly indented code explicitly require indentation-only patches which shall be applied before?
diff --git a/hw/scsi-disk.c b/hw/scsi-disk.c index 2a9268a..1a7487e 100644 --- a/hw/scsi-disk.c +++ b/hw/scsi-disk.c @@ -5,6 +5,12 @@ * Based on code by Fabrice Bellard * * Written by Paul Brook + * Modifications: + * 2009-Oct-26 Artyom Tarasenko : implemented stamdard inquiry for the case + * when the allocation length of CDB is smaller + * than 36. + * 2009-Oct-13 Artyom Tarasenko : implemented the block descriptor in the + * MODE SENSE response. * * This code is licenced under the LGPL. * @@ -576,11 +582,6 @@ static int32_t scsi_send_command(SCSIDevice *d, uint32_t tag, "is less than 5\n", len); goto fail; } - - if (len < 36) { - BADF("Error: Inquiry (STANDARD) buffer size %d " - "is less than 36 (TODO: only 5 required)\n", len); - } }