Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:55:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:55:46 -0500 Received: from [81.2.122.30] ([81.2.122.30]:39686 "EHLO darkstar.example.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:55:45 -0500 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200301101702.h0AH2iqI013527@darkstar.example.net> Subject: Re: Problem in IDE Disks cache handling in kernel 2.4.XX To: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:02:44 +0000 (GMT) Cc: fverscheure@wanadoo.fr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, andre@linux-ide.org In-Reply-To: <1042219407.31848.71.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> from "Alan Cox" at Jan 10, 2003 05:23:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 988 Lines: 27 > > And by the way how are powered off the IDE drives ? > > Because a FLUSH CACHE or STANDY or SLEEP is MANDATORY before > > powering off the drive with cache enabled or you will enjoy lost > > data. > > We always issue standby or sleep commands to a drive before powering > off which means the cache flush thing should never have been an > issue. I experienced drives spinning back up after they had been flushed on powerdown, which is not necessarily wrong, (I.E. I never noticed any data loss), but it's not ideal. Can't we do: * Standby * Flush * Standby or is there a reason not to? I know there were discussions about the right order to do the standyby and flush, and as far as I remember, we never reached a conclusion :-). John. - 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/