[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D5F4A0.4050000@garzik.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:14:56 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
CC: Robert Hancock <hancockr@...w.ca>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, edmudama@...il.com,
Nicolas.Mailhot@...oste.net
Subject: Re: libata FUA revisited
Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Robert Hancock wrote:
> [--correct summary snipped--]
>> Given the above, what I'm proposing to do is:
>>
>> -Remove the blacklisting of Maxtor BANC1G10 firmware for FUA. If we
>> need to FUA-blacklist any drives this should likely be added to the
>> existing "horkage" mechanism we now have. However, at this point I
>> don't think that's needed, considering that I've seen no conclusive
>> evidence that any drive has ever been established to have broken FUA.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> -Add a new port flag ATA_FLAG_NO_FUA to indicate that a controller
>> can't handle FUA commands, and add that flag to sata_sil. Force FUA
>> off on any drive connected to a controller with this bit set.
>>
>> There was some talk that sata_mv might have this problem, but I
>> believe the conclusion was that it didn't. The only controllers that
>> would are ones that actually try to interpret the ATA command codes
>> and don't know about WRITE DMA FUA.
>
> I think it would be better to add ATA_FLAG_FUA instead of ATA_FLAG_NO_FUA.
This is an interesting (if small) problem. I would propose a third
option: add ATA_FLAG_NO_FUA to applicable /SATA/ drivers, but leave
those without ATA_FLAG_SATA alone.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists