I don't suppose there would be any problem doing it in userspace / with ATA PASS-THROUGH anyway. I just couldn't agree that it would be the reason not to implement the translation (which covers the core part of the feature set) in the kernel. But certainly I wouldn't keep aruging on this. I don't think we would really want to patch sg_sanitize the way you proposed, otherwise we would have made the SCSI disk driver doing ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE and issue TRIM commands directly, instead of relying on a SATL. ATA PASS-THROUGH should never be "triggered" like that anyway. Well, it is alright to have an "sg_sat_sanitize" (which makes use of ATA PASS-THROUGH like other sg_sat_*) though. I am just not sure if sg3_utils should go on having more sg_sat_*... On 9 July 2016 at 08:49, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 19:38 +0000, Tom Yan wrote: >> On 8 July 2016 at 17:29, James Bottomley >> <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Or we could simply patch sg_sanitze to issue the ATA_16 pass >> > through when it sees a sata device ... >> > >> >> Ugh that sounds ugly to me. Anyway that's off-topic. > > Not really. The point is that you've proposed something as an addition > to the kernel that can also be done in userspace. Checking if it can > work easily there is like a barrier to entry. If it works, then fine, > we're done. If it throws up problems then we reconsider the kernel > route. > > James > -- 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
