Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 2 Mar 2006 08:22:38 +0100 | | From | Jens Axboe <> | | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |