From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: libata: set queue SSD flag for SSD devices Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:55:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20081010175508.3d1ed2a4@infradead.org> References: <200810101904.m9AJ42Gq018897@hera.kernel.org> <20081010202515.446857cc@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20081010200528.GJ19428@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44748 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754201AbYJKAzP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:55:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081010200528.GJ19428@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:05:28 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > In this specific patch, it'll do no harm at least since I very much > doubt we'll see a false positive. And even if, the consequences wont > be dire. But it does want the version check, of course. > also, is "is an ssd" the right question or is "doesn't have seek latency" the right one? (difference is.. well EMC boxes with lots of ram etc) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org