Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269445AbUINPzz (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:55:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269455AbUINPyl (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:54:41 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:34528 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269456AbUINPvQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:51:16 -0400 Message-ID: <41471366.1070103@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:51:02 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Lord CC: Jens Axboe , Alan Cox , "C.Y.M." , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Changes to ide-probe.c in 2.6.9-rc2 causing improper detection References: <20040914060628.GC2336@suse.de> <1095156346.16572.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <41470BBD.7060700@pobox.com> <20040914152509.GA27892@suse.de> <41470F3A.1060308@rtr.ca> <414710AA.80706@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <414710AA.80706@rtr.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 39 Mark Lord wrote: > One obvious safeguard would be to never use FLUSH_CACHE on any > drive that lacks UDMA, unless the drive claims to support FLUSH_CACHE. > > That will eliminate all current FLASH memory devices. I think you're hunting for hueristics, not making a general rule. IMO any assumption that this behavior will always be limited to flash devices is a shaky assumption. Your initial suggestion is probably much better: > But one could augment it with a check of the ATA revision code, > and possibly exclude drives that predate the *formal* introduction > of the FLUSH_CACHE command, unless their IDENTIFY data specifically > claims to include it. That implies my code would become if (ata version < 4) return not-supported if (wbcache-enabled or have-flush-cache or have-flush-cache-ext) return supported return not-supported Yes? Alan, do you still feel that the "wbcache-enabled" test should be removed? Since wbcache-enabled is more of a hueristic than a formal test, I don't mind removing it. 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/