Il 25/04/2013 03:32, Martin K. Petersen ha scritto: > I'm ok with your patch. And a strong believer in not altering the > SYNCHRONIZE CACHE behavior that's been rigorously tested in the field by > adding SYNC_NV to the mix. SYNC_NV is absolutely necessary for targets that (a) have both volatile and non-volatile cache, and (b) actually follow the standards behavior for SYNC_NV=0. I used NV_SUP as a guess that the SYNC_NV bit is supported, perhaps V_SUP && NV_SUP is a better guess. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
