Re: Changes to ide-probe.c in 2.6.9-rc2 causing improper detection
From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 10:59:32 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/