Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 07 Jul 2004 01:40:31 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote: > 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.
True, but you also have to think about which is easier for drive vendors to implement (without screwing up the implementation :)), and which is more likely get through T13...
Jeff
- 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/
| |