Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51:08 +0100 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@xbsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_da.c src/sys/dev/usb umass.c usbdevs Message-ID: <200601310251.16946.flz@xbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <43DEB6C5.8090504@root.org> References: <20060130202806.DCC7916A4CA@hub.freebsd.org> <200601310133.34152.flz@xbsd.org> <43DEB6C5.8090504@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1193124.iTfgH26Rz4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 31 January 2006 02:00, Nate Lawson wrote: > Florent Thoumie wrote: > > On Tuesday 31 January 2006 01:24, Nate Lawson wrote: > >>I'm not concerned about the revision. I'm concerned about the vendor > >>(Generic*) and device name (STORAGE DEVICE*). Why are the *'s needed? > > > > Seemed common practice reading the other entries. > > No, that's definitely not it. In fact, the most recent entries should > be audited to see if they really need the *'s. This wildcard might > overly match the wrong devices. > > >>(Again, a PR would help track this kind of conversation as shown in > >>previous PRs about quirks. Submitters often match way too much.) > >> > >>>Do you want me to create a PR just for tracking purposes? > >>>[1] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060116193024.GA95183 > >> > >>That would be nice, especially since some of the requested info is > >>missing (dmesg, usbdevs -v). However, if you cited a email in the > >>commit msg (maybe SMTP Message-ID) such that we could find it in the > >>future, that would probably be enough. I'm not trying to create a > >>bureaucracy, just make sure we don't lose information like we used to on > >>why a quirk was added in the first place. > > > > I only mentioned the freebsd-usb mailing list. I'll contact Anders to g= et > > additional details and I (or he) will fill a PR so that we can add it to > > the comment. > > Thanks. > > > It seems a lot of devices are concerned by the sync cache problem, would > > it be harmful to just remove this part of the code or could there be a > > way to detect if the device supports it or not? > > Well, it's important to run SYNC_CACHE in shutdown or possibly when > unmounting a filesystem. Otherwise, data could be lost on boot. > However, I support adding a USB-specific mechanism that says SYNC_CACHE > should only be run on shutdown or device_eject, that way devices that > hang after this command is run would still work at runtime. And SCSI > devices that support multiple calls to SYNC_CACHE (i.e. most non-USB > devs) would still work too. > > However, the first step is to investigate what windows and Linux do. Linux only sends the SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE command if the WCE (Write Cache Enab= le)=20 bit of the disk is set. I can't seem to find something equivalent to this i= n=20 our CAM framework. I have no particular SCSI knowledge but I guess I can ha= ve=20 a look at this tomorrow. I'm forwarding this to freebsd-scsi@ (keep me CC'ed, as I'm not subscribed = to=20 this list, yet). =2D-=20 =46lorent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org =46reeBSD Committer --nextPart1193124.iTfgH26Rz4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBD3sKUMxEkbVFH3PQRAitXAJ40IV4gpLF//h2PDVva6C3TCKN2hACcD9QQ muyn35Z7+j57eoC+YUMUu6E= =8LJ2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1193124.iTfgH26Rz4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200601310251.16946.flz>