Hello, On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > Tejun> If there's something on the horizon which would solve the > Tejun> identification problem and we only have to worry about the > Tejun> current batch of devices, whitelisting can be useful but > Tejun> otherwise I'm not sure this is a good idea. > > There isn't :( The only saving grace is that SSDs are gravitating > towards NVMe and other non-ATA interfaces. Yeap, that's true. This whole thing is on the way out. > I've already tightened up things in SCSI so we now prefer WRITE SAME > which does give hard guarantees unlike UNMAP. But because we use WRITE > SAME in the libata SATL it is imperative that we change our internal > flagging to be equally restrictive. Can you please elaborate this in the changelog and add comments explaning why ATA_HORKAGE_ZERO_AFTER_TRIM is necessary and how it's used? > I just feel bad about disabling the feature for the many existing users > (and there are quite a few) that are using well-behaved drives in their > RAID deployments. And the filesystem folks have been begging for the > zeroout discard variant that I posted a few weeks ago. So the users are > there. I'm just trying to accommodate them the best I can given the lame > spec. Can you please explain further the practical gains of using trims which guarantee zeroing? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
