Re: cdrecord 2.01 do READ_BUFFER and crashes drive.
Hin-Tak Leung <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Older cdrecord versions did not do a sped test.
> > Cdrecord asumes either a working drive or at least a kernel that returns correct
> > error information so cdrecord will know that a specific command does not work.
> In this case, the newly introduced speed test seems to cause more problem
> than it tries to solve. I would suggest making it optional?
Sorry, I can only see that the linux kernel causes problems because it
does not return useful error information.
> Also, using a new and previously not-used scsi command seems to be an
> important enough change that probably should have been mentioned
> in the change log?
Just read the changelog. This has been changed 10 months ago...and tested for 3
months. Nobody did complain. BTW: the read buffer command was in use since
July 1999 (but transferring only 4 bytes).
> > Which OS?
> Linux, as explained below, I had no way of installing Solaris 10.
Q: If you find that the Linux kernel is broken, how about making it optional?
A: Well, I know for a long time and cdrtools was developed on Solaris since
the beginning for exactly this reason.
EMail:email@example.com (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily