https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=229210 teheo@novell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Info Provider|teheo@novell.com | ------- Comment #47 from teheo@novell.com 2007-06-11 05:34 MST ------- Sorry, I was confused a bit. Well, this FLUSH/FLUSH_EXT thing is confusing. Here's the story as I know it. During LBA48 discussion, someone thought that it would be cool to use FLUSH_CACHE(0xE7) to only flush sectors before 1 << 28, while using FLUSH_CACHE_EXT(0xEA) to flush the area beyond, which clearly isn't a good idea as it buys almost nothing and makes FLUSH_CACHE undependable, so final version of the standard scrapped it out and made 0xE7 do everything but some vendors went ahead and implemented the original proposal of separate FLUSH_CACHE and FLUSH_CACHE_EXT. So, we all have to live with this mess and here's the sanctioned way to deal with it. 1. check capacity, if it's smaller than 1<<28, just use 0xE7. 2. if it's equal to or larger than 1<<28, issue IDENTIFY command to acquire ID data. Test bit 13 of word 83. If the bit is set, use 0xEA and fall back to 0xE7 if that fails. If the bit is not set, use 0xE7. Note that ID data is 256 le16 words. You'll need to swap bytes in each word in be machines. Please refer to hdparm code for details. It's pretty complex. It would be better if we can co-work with Henrique and other ppl so that we all have the same code base. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.