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  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, 8 Mar 2014 11:57:18 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	IDE-ML <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] libata fixes for v3.14-rc5

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Just a couple patches blacklisting more broken devices.

Pulled. However:

>         /* devices that don't properly handle queued TRIM commands */
>         { "Micron_M500*",               NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
>         { "Crucial_CT???M500SSD1",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
> +       { "Crucial_CT???M500SSD3",      NULL,   ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },

If we know M500SSD1 and M500SSD3 are both broken the same way, and the
Micron_M500* is too (which is, as far as I know, the same device), why
the heck do we make the test that specific?

Why not just use Crucial_CT???M500* or something? The likelihood of
some new version of the same broken device coming up is small, and if
it does, we don't even care. Why would we risk it?

            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