Re: "logical unit communication failure" c2scan NEC ND-4550A 1.07
Joerg Schilling schrieb am 2006-02-12:
> Of course I reported the bug, but you may know that Linux bugs are not
> fixed.
URL or Message-ID?
I need something to quote to the guys if it turns out to be really a
Linux bug that has been unfixed for years. In case you need help
interpreting my post: I'm not ruling out yet that Linux has a bug here
(and at first glance it seems Linux is the culprit), but I need to be
sure before approaching someone with a report.
> And you have even been a a witness of one related case: THe Linux
> people do e.g. refuse to investigate in the Linux kernel problem that
> results in bastardized SCSI commands on the way from libscg to the
> drive. So please don't tell me that you are not aware of the problem.
I haven't seen a list or sample of affected commands, only nebulous
"look at XYZ to see for yourself". That's too scarce to reproduce.
> > > As the problem is most likely DMA related, it still makes sense to boot
> > > SchilliX as he only needs to run readcd after a less than one minute boot
> > > from the Life CD.
> >
> > Not interested. See assertion 3. above.
>
> OK, if you are not interested in further investigation let us conclude that
> you like to stop this conversation.
You can of course quit the discussion anytime you want, you have no
contractual or legal obligation to investigate. I'll figure things out
by myself, it may take a bit longer though, but who cares. The issue is
not urgent.
The conclusion I'm not interested in a solution is false though.
> > That remains to be investigated.
>
> Wrong: obvious things do not need to be investigated.
I'll decide myself what I consider obvious, and given the Linux and BSD
backends of libscg aren't identical, nothing is obvious here.
It is obvious though it's a software problem because FreeBSD + libscg +
readcd works as advertised, and you failed to produce a single reason
why retesting with SchilliX, Solaris or Windows would produce any
further information that helps debugging.
Besides that, I am well aware by now that your Linux knowledge is not on
par with your Solaris wisdom and you aren't staying up to date WRT
Linux, so I'll rather not trust your assertions WRT Linux. Most date
back to 2.4 times, a few back to 2.6.9 times and that's about it.
That's not much, and it's not a problem per se; perhaps you should just
find somebody else to maintain your Linux port of libscg and cdrtools
(no, I'm not offering to do that at this time). That saves you the
hassles of staying up to date WRT Linux progress or dealing with systems
you consider broken by design.
--
Matthias Andree
Reply to: