lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: FUA and 311x (was Re: LibPATA code issues / 2.6.15.4)
On Wed, Mar 01 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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.

Yeah which explains it a lot better as well... The FUA drive problem
never made much sense to me.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-02 08:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans