Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:41:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:41:46 -0500 Received: from fmr02.intel.com ([192.55.52.25]:30955 "EHLO caduceus.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:41:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Cress, Andrew R" To: "'James Bottomley'" , Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: RE: sd_read_cache_type Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:35:32 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1051 Lines: 30 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/