[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[OT] USB stick failure is bizarre



I have an 8GB USB stick that seems to have suffered a "brain
transplant" and I wondered if the symptoms are as bizarre as
they seem. When inserted, udev fills out the usual symlinks
for by-id and by-path, but any attempt to use the stick
results in "No medium found".

The output from /run/udev/data/b8:16 looks really bizarre when
compared with the original data (when it worked).

Now:

$ cat /run/udev/data/b8:16
S:disk/by-path/pci-0000:00:14.0-usb-0:4:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0
S:disk/by-id/usb-Silicon_Motion_Inc._USB_MEMORY_BAR-0:0
W:21
I:4318771640
E:ID_VENDOR=Silicon_Motion_Inc.
E:ID_VENDOR_ENC=Silicon\x20Motion\x2cInc.\x20
E:ID_VENDOR_ID=090c
E:ID_MODEL=USB_MEMORY_BAR
E:ID_MODEL_ENC=USB\x20MEMORY\x20BAR\x20\x20
E:ID_MODEL_ID=3000
E:ID_REVISION=1000
E:ID_SERIAL=Silicon_Motion_Inc._USB_MEMORY_BAR-0:0
E:ID_TYPE=disk
E:ID_INSTANCE=0:0
E:ID_BUS=usb
E:ID_USB_INTERFACES=:080650:
E:ID_USB_INTERFACE_NUM=00
E:ID_USB_DRIVER=usb-storage
E:ID_PATH=pci-0000:00:14.0-usb-0:4:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0
E:ID_PATH_TAG=pci-0000_00_14_0-usb-0_4_1_0-scsi-0_0_0_0
G:systemd
$ 

When working, it resembled its colleagues:

N:sdb
S:disk/by-id/usb-SMI_USB_DISK-0:0
S:disk/by-path/pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:5:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0
W:51
I:12420828601
E:ID_BUS=usb
E:ID_INSTANCE=0:0
E:ID_MODEL=USB_DISK
E:ID_MODEL_ENC=USB\x20DISK\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20
E:ID_MODEL_ID=1000
E:ID_PART_TABLE_TYPE=dos
E:ID_PATH=pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:5:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0
E:ID_PATH_TAG=pci-0000_00_1d_7-usb-0_5_1_0-scsi-0_0_0_0
E:ID_REVISION=1100
E:ID_SERIAL=SMI_USB_DISK-0:0
E:ID_TYPE=disk
E:ID_USB_DRIVER=usb-storage
E:ID_USB_INTERFACES=:080650:
E:ID_USB_INTERFACE_NUM=00
E:ID_VENDOR=SMI
E:ID_VENDOR_ENC=SMI\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20
E:ID_VENDOR_ID=090c
E:UDISKS_PARTITION_TABLE=1
E:UDISKS_PARTITION_TABLE_COUNT=1
E:UDISKS_PARTITION_TABLE_SCHEME=mbr
E:UDISKS_PRESENTATION_NOPOLICY=0

So the vendor and model information are present but different;
or are these values an artifact? Is this mode of failure
typical or odd?

Cheers,
David.


Reply to: