Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Cress, Andrew R" <> | Subject | RE: sd_read_cache_type | Date | Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:35:32 -0800 |
| |
RE: cache Yes, at least a synchronize, but can we always know (in time) if the medium has been removed? We may not always get an eject request, right? I think write-back cache is inherently unsafe in general, but I guess we have to allow unsafe things like that for non-production use.
Andy
-----Original Message----- From: James Bottomley Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 10:14 AM [...]
Well, the cache is pretty often part of the permanent assembly, not part of the removable medium, so I think it should still be called for removable media. That begs the question, of course, what should the cache type be---it
strikes me as rather unsafe to have a removable RW medium with a write back cache? I suppose at the very least we should to a SYNCHRONIZE on ejection if it's write back?
James [...] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |