Message-ID: <1337099344.13455.9.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] scsi: usb-storage: hide errors for five devices
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@parallels.com>,
        Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net>,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, usb-storage@lists.one-eyed-alien.net,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 18:29:04 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20120515153539.GA25206@kroah.com>
References: <1336491453.1933.67.camel@x61.thuisdomein>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1205081240450.1479-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
	 <20120515153539.GA25206@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1073
Lines: 28

On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 08:35 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Of course, an easy way out would be to downgrade both the "Asking for
> > > cache data failed" and the "No Caching mode page present" errors to
> > > notices. But the SCSI people might disagree with that approach.
> > 
> > Well, let's see what they say.
> 
> What ever happened here, are these 3 patches acceptable, or do they need
> to be reworked or something else?

Nothing happened after Alan's message.

So, currently only the first patch was acceptable (to Alan, that is, but
it touched the SCSI code).

At least, I haven't seen a reply from the SCSI people. Perhaps the best
thing to do is to submit a series of one or two trivial patches that
just downgrade the errors involved to notices. That should lead to
feedback by the SCSI people.


Paul Bolle

--
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/