Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later

[Jeff Garzik]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/