Re: ide errors in 7-rc1-mm1 and later

Jeff Garzik
2004-07-07T05:41:08Z

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28 2004, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jun 26 at 1:31, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>>
>>>Eric,
>>>
>>>There is no need for a new opcode.
>>>The behavior is simple and trivial to support.
>>>
>>>If standard flush_cache/ext were to behave just like standard data_in
>>>taskfile register setup, yet use a non_data command state machine it would
>>>be done.
>>>
>>>Special case would be deal with LBA Zero and this would have to behave
>>>like a complete device flush. Since flushing sector zero is not generally
>>>done ... well this would go into a design debate and it is not my issue
>>>nor my desire to enter one today.
>>>
>>>28-bit would support max 256 sectors
>>>48-bit would support max 65536 sectors
>>>
>>>Anyone could write this simple proposal to T13 for SATA and T10 for SAS.
>>
>>True, that would work just as well.
>>
>>But as you mention, it isn't necessarilly what people want or think
>>they want or could actually use...
>
>
> It would work, but it's still a lot nicer to not have to issue an extra
> command to flush the range.

True, but you also have to think about which is easier for drive vendors
to implement (without screwing up the implementation :)), and which is
more likely get through T13...

Jeff