[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180502215950.GA4621@sudip-laptop>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 22:59:50 +0100
From: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libata: blacklist Micron SSD
Hi Martin,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:24:49PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> Sudip,
>
> > v1: Only M500IT MU01 was blacklisted.
> >
> > v2: Whitelist M500IT BG02 and M500DC and then blacklist all other Micron.
>
> I think my preference would be to blacklist M500IT with the MU01
> firmware (which Micron said was affected) and rely on the "Micron*"
> fallthrough further down for the rest.
This patch was based on your reply at:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ide/msg55370.html
>
> I have not gotten firm confirmation on ZRAT behavior so for now we
> should probably just do:
>
> + { "Micron_M500IT_*", "MU01", ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM, },
My v1 patch had only MU01 with ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM and
ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM. I am not very much confident on only
having ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM as we have seen huge regression due to
243918be6393 ("libata: Do not blacklist Micron M500DC"). Unless, Micron
confirms that it can only have 'ATA_HORKAGE_NO_NCQ_TRIM' I think we
should go for both. I don't think we should mark it as ZRAT supported,
(without Micron confirmation) and cause another regression.
My v1 patch is at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10287605/
Do you want me to resend it again?
--
Regards
Sudip
Powered by blists - more mailing lists