Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jul 2004 10:29:31 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later |
| |
On Mon, Jun 28 2004, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26 at 1:31, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > >Eric, > > > >There is no need for a new opcode. > >The behavior is simple and trivial to support. > > > >If standard flush_cache/ext were to behave just like standard data_in > >taskfile register setup, yet use a non_data command state machine it would > >be done. > > > >Special case would be deal with LBA Zero and this would have to behave > >like a complete device flush. Since flushing sector zero is not generally > >done ... well this would go into a design debate and it is not my issue > >nor my desire to enter one today. > > > >28-bit would support max 256 sectors > >48-bit would support max 65536 sectors > > > >Anyone could write this simple proposal to T13 for SATA and T10 for SAS. > > True, that would work just as well. > > But as you mention, it isn't necessarilly what people want or think > they want or could actually use...
It would work, but it's still a lot nicer to not have to issue an extra command to flush the range.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |