On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:05:03 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:54:47 -0600, Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:59:18 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >> >On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:56:41 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:54:49 -0600, Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:32:53 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >> >> > >> The datacenters/server folks that would be using these drives would >> >> > >> expect them to remain as set. I have to check, but unless something >> >> > >> has changed very recently in the kernel, setting with hdparm does not >> >> > >> "stick" in the sense that the command succeeds to the disk, but no >> >> > >> change >> >> > >> is made to the barrier. >> >> > > >> >> > >It is not a problem for IDE driver (flushes become no-ops) >> >> > >and this way you can later enable wcache and still use barries. >> >> > >> >> > Well that certainly simplfies things. >> >> > >> >> > How about this? >> >> >> >> No go until 'drive->wcache' bug is fixed. >> > >> >And until user is informed about status of wcache (printk). >> > >> >> [PATCH] use IDE drive cache enabled setting by default. >> >> Enable the default setting of the driver use of write cache to be >> defined by the drive itself. >> >> Signed-off-by: Doug Maxey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> ===== drivers/ide/ide-disk.c 1.115 vs 1.116 ===== >> --- 1.115/drivers/ide/ide-disk.c 2005-01-04 11:39:25 -06:00 >> +++ 1.116/drivers/ide/ide-disk.c 2005-01-29 15:13:24 -06:00 >> @@ -784,6 +784,7 @@ static int write_cache(ide_drive_t *driv >> if (err) >> return err; >> >> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "%s: %sabling write cache\n", drive->name, arg ? >> "en" : "dis"); >> drive->wcache = arg; >> return 0; >> } >> @@ -1080,10 +1081,10 @@ static void idedisk_setup (ide_drive_t * >> drive->no_io_32bit = id->dword_io ? 1 : 0; >> >> /* write cache enabled? */ >> - if ((id->csfo & 1) || (id->cfs_enable_1 & (1 << 5))) >> + if ((id->csfo & 1) && (id->cfs_enable_1 & (1 << 5))) >> drive->wcache = 1; > >This bogus... I was thinking about bug related to hdparm...
Sorry, my crystal ball is foggy today. Do you have a specific bug number or message-id? > >> - write_cache(drive, 1); >> + write_cache(drive, drive->wcache); > >You still didn't answer my question what is the practical reason for this... Thought we had already cleared this up. See above. > >> /* >> * We must avoid issuing commands a drive does not understand >> > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
