| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:03:45 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: request to revert libata-convert-to-block-tagging patches On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: > > I'm just a little bit nervous because libata always has had this tag 0 > for non-NCQ commands assumption and this conversion changes that, so I > was hoping to update blk-tag such that such assumption can be guaranteed > first and then convert libata to be on the safe side. Some controllers > use completely different command mechanism for different protocols and > it's much safer and more deterministic if same tag can be guaranteed. Yeah, I think that's a good argument. Even when controllers expect tags, it's certainyl quite possible that all they've ever been tested with have always started tag allocation from zero, so while the "start at an offset" thing is fairly clever for other reasons, it probably was the wrong thing to do. Maybe we can just have something count "outstanding async/sync requests". Linus -- 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