Message-ID: <4406512A.9080708@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 20:58:02 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, "Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@gmail.com>,
       Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
CC: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@gmail.com>, Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>,
       linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Carlos Pardo <Carlos.Pardo@siliconimage.com>
Subject: Re: FUA and 311x (was Re: LibPATA code issues / 2.6.15.4)
References: <1141239617.23202.5.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org>	 <4405F471.8000602@rtr.ca>	 <1141254762.11543.10.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <311601c90603011719k43af0fbbg889f47d798e22839@mail.gmail.com> <440650BC.5090501@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <440650BC.5090501@pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 929
Lines: 21

Jeff Garzik wrote:
> For libata, I think an ATA_FLAG_NO_FUA would be appropriate for 
> situations like this...  assume FUA is supported in the controller, and 
> set a flag where it is not.  Most chips will support FUA, either by 
> design or by sheer luck.  The ones that do not support FUA are the 
> controllers that snoop the ATA command opcode, and internally choose the 
> protocol based on that opcode.  For such hardware, unknown opcodes will 
> inevitably cause problems.

This also begs the question... what controller was being used, when the 
single Maxtor device listed in the blacklist was added?  Perhaps it was 
a problem with the controller, not the device.

	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/