Jeff Garzik wrote:
Ric Wheeler wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
..
IMO we could look at this too, or perhaps come up with an alternate
proposal like FLUSH CACHE RANGE(s).
I agree that it is worth getting better mechanisms in place - the
cache flush is really primitive. Now we just need a victim to sit in
on T13/T10 standards meetings :-)
Heck, we could even do a prototype implementation with the help of Mark
Lord's sata_mv target mode support...
..
Speaking of which.. you probably won't see the preliminary rev
of sata_mv + target_mode until sometime this weekend.
It's going to be something quite simple for 2.6.30,
and we can expand on that in later kernels.
Cheers
--
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
