On Wed, Mar 01 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >For libata, I think an ATA_FLAG_NO_FUA would be appropriate for > >situations like this... assume FUA is supported in the controller, and > >set a flag where it is not. Most chips will support FUA, either by > >design or by sheer luck. The ones that do not support FUA are the > >controllers that snoop the ATA command opcode, and internally choose the > >protocol based on that opcode. For such hardware, unknown opcodes will > >inevitably cause problems. > > This also begs the question... what controller was being used, when the > single Maxtor device listed in the blacklist was added? Perhaps it was > a problem with the controller, not the device. Yeah which explains it a lot better as well... The FUA drive problem never made much sense to me. -- Jens Axboe - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
