On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:07:52AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The reason for the try_rc_10_first flag is that some devices return
> > bogus data in response to RC16. Like, an 800 GB device claiming to
> > have 3 exabytes.
>
> So we could easily send both and only believe RC10 if the device is
> under 2TB. However, what about all the extra flags we read out of RC16,
> like trim, large sector size and DIF capability? If the device lies
> about its capacity, won't we get bogus values for those as well, which
> is going to cause other screw ups?
I think the necessary algorithm is simpler than that:
Send RC10 (unless the device supports PI, in which case it's probably
enterprisey and well-tested)
Send RC16
If RC10 capacity agrees with RC16 capacity, use extra RC16 data.
(for values of "agrees with" that include the "-1 to use RC16" indicator)
Sure, it's one extra command, but really, who cares?
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
