From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCHSET #upstream] libata: improve FLUSH error handling Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:52:58 -0400 Message-ID: <47EBED0A.8020201@garzik.org> References: <12066128663306-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <47EBAE2B.8070102@rtr.ca> <47EBDF36.5080504@emc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:39538 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755309AbYC0SxD (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:53:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <47EBDF36.5080504@emc.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: ric@emc.com Cc: Mark Lord , Tejun Heo , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Ric Wheeler wrote: > I think that the 30 seconds was meant to be that worst case time for the > drive to respond to a command. We try to push vendors to respond in much > less time than that (it's important to get things like the fast fail > path for RAID working correctly), say something like 10-15 seconds. Multiple vendors say the FLUSH CACHE worst case can exceed 30 seconds though... Jeff