From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758310AbYJKGrD (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:47:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756037AbYJKGi3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:38:29 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:41482 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754061AbYJKGh2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:37:28 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:36:51 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org Subject: Re: libata: set queue SSD flag for SSD devices Message-ID: <20081011063650.GL19428@kernel.dk> References: <200810101904.m9AJ42Gq018897@hera.kernel.org> <20081010202515.446857cc@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20081010200528.GJ19428@kernel.dk> <20081010175508.3d1ed2a4@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081010175508.3d1ed2a4@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 10 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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) The block layer uses the 'non rotational' nomenclature for this, but that's not perfect either. And neither is 'no seek', a single "parameter" is not enough to describe the device. But it's good enough I think, it'll be expanded later with a (bit) fuller profile. -- Jens Axboe