On Fri, Oct 10 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:05:28 +0200 > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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
