[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <op.vfuffnzb7p4s8u@pikus>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:12:49 +0200
From: Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Shevchenko <ext-andriy.shevchenko@...ia.com>,
Denis Karpov <ext-denis.2.karpov@...ia.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...ia.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] usb: gadget: storage: optional SCSI WRITE FUA bit
> 2010/7/14 Michał Nazarewicz <m.nazarewicz@...sung.com>:
>> Ah, OK, I see why this is per LUN. You want to be able not to ignore
>> FUA if the backing storage is a removable media, right?
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:05:07 +0200, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> In instance, or vise versa.
I actually see the most sense in disabling FUA on devices with their
own power supply for logical units which backing file is not (on) a
removable device unless the removable device has some kind of lock
(like CD-ROM's door).
Either way, I now see the point of having this option per-LUN.
>>> Actually fua = 1 means ignorance of that flag.
>> ignore_fua would be better name then I think. This also stands for
>> module parameter.
Or even “nofua”. The other solution would be to change the meaning
to the opposite (1 meaning that FUA is not ignored).
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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