linux-kernel - Re: libata: set queue SSD flag for SSD devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:36:51 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...l.org
Subject: Re: libata: set queue SSD flag for SSD devices

On Fri, Oct 10 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:05:28 +0200
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > 
> > In this specific patch, it'll do no harm at least since I very much
> > doubt we'll see a false positive. And even if, the consequences wont
> > be dire. But it does want the version check, of course.
> > 
> 
> also, is "is an ssd" the right question or is "doesn't have seek
> latency" the right one?
> (difference is.. well EMC boxes with lots of ram etc)

The block layer uses the 'non rotational' nomenclature for this, but
that's not perfect either. And neither is 'no seek', a single
"parameter" is not enough to describe the device. But it's good enough I
think, it'll be expanded later with a (bit) fuller profile.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/