From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata: Whitelist SSDs that are known to properly return zeroes after TRIM Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 22:02:35 -0500 Message-ID: <547FCECB.4090908@ubuntu.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.230]:32705 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbaLDDDh (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2014 22:03:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" , Tejun Heo Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 12/03/2014 09:44 PM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > This patch whitelists SSDs from a few of the main vendors. None of > the whitelists are based on written guarantees. They are purely > based on empirical evidence collected from internal and external > users that have tested or qualified these drives in RAID > deployments. Without anything in writing from the vendor, such a white list amounts to nothing more than wishful thinking. You can't really test for it and even if it *appears* to be so, the drive is free to change its behavior any time. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUf87GAAoJENRVrw2cjl5RPMwIAI3RHHZBhv0xDi5uMCzHdaZM pSp+OAYtuXuYKNhxEnH/v3RqqeL2joARR7ELa3wZ57DilpANF4SPKeV4TyJqdjxG BLYeW1jySSNn7LjBDRxSgg61FRka4Bz3m4MCA6/6pfZawufE4bkTshRhpMzIWMsb AAt1d1Kyw2a2wat2+h75LqEVuPdTcENBV7B1Ow//zObkljGf3p3Jkjiz3ZKE3bIT kXIu62kypdUbvpYCtSE7Xa51Io74jPtZPyjc6vrsFaB8ulhFzDg5WK4o8Ndswz3D Rjq4WAl7dOJ0KUKef3n57YZFjgtfPo3VUIXzrDOo0hCXYUO77Kxei9ZwOtJUkrc= =5Wuq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----