| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140718151131.GB7425@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 08:11:31 -0700 From: "Christoph Hellwig (hch@...radead.org)" <hch@...radead.org> To: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott@...com> Cc: KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>, "michaelc@...wisc.edu" <michaelc@...wisc.edu>, "Christoph Hellwig (hch@...radead.org)" <hch@...radead.org>, "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>, "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>, "devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [SCSI] Fix a bug in deriving the FLUSH_TIMEOUT from the basic I/O timeout On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:51:06AM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: > SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (16) should be favored over SYNCHRONIZE > CACHE (10) unless SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (10) is not supported. I gues you mean (16) for the last occurance? What's the benefit of using SYNCHRONIZE CACHE (16) if we don't pass a LBA range? -- 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