On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Tom Yan wrote:
> You only fill the bytes that you want to to set explicitly:
>
> + put_unaligned_le16(0x0002, &sctpg[0]); /* SCT_ACT_WRITE_SAME */
> + put_unaligned_le16(0x0101, &sctpg[1]); /* WRITE PTRN FG */
> + put_unaligned_le64(lba, &sc
You only fill the bytes that you want to to set explicitly:
+ put_unaligned_le16(0x0002, &sctpg[0]); /* SCT_ACT_WRITE_SAME */
+ put_unaligned_le16(0x0101, &sctpg[1]); /* WRITE PTRN FG */
+ put_unaligned_le64(lba, &sctpg[2]);
+ put_unaligned_le64(num, &sctpg[6]);
+
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Tom Yan wrote:
> Btw, I wonder if you need to memset your buffer with 0 first, like
> what is done in ata_scsi_rbuf_get.
It is not necessary as the defined buffer is completely filled out here.
Are you thinking as a sort of future proofing?
Ex: In the unlikely ev
Btw, I wonder if you need to memset your buffer with 0 first, like
what is done in ata_scsi_rbuf_get.
On 24 August 2016 at 13:57, Tom Yan wrote:
> Never mind. I was a bit lightheaded.
>
> Anyway I don't think you should use ata_scsi_rbuf. It is a buffer
> created and used for ata_scsi_simulate, w
Never mind. I was a bit lightheaded.
Anyway I don't think you should use ata_scsi_rbuf. It is a buffer
created and used for ata_scsi_simulate, which interacts with the SCSI
layer but not the ATA device (v.s. ata_scsi_translate). You should
probably create buffer inside ata_format_dsm_trim_descr()
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Tom Yan wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 04:23, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>> +/**
>> + * ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() - SATL Write Same to ATA SCT Write Same
>> + * @cmd: SCSI command being translated
>> + * @lba: Starting sector
>> + * @num: Number of logical sectors to
On 22 August 2016 at 04:23, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> SATA drives may support write same via SCT. This is useful
> for setting the drive contents to a specific pattern (0's).
>
> Translate a SCSI WRITE SAME 16 command to be either a DSM TRIM
> command or an SCT Write Same command.
>
> Based on the U
Hmm,
On 22 August 2016 at 18:00, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>
> Timeout for WS is 120 seconds so we should be fine there.
>
> The number to look for is the:
>Max. Sustained Transfer Rate OD (MB/s): 190 8TB (180 5TB)
>
> Which means the above drives should complete a 2G write in
> about 10 to 11 se
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Tom Yan wrote:
> I am really not going to tell the whole story here again. We have a
> really long discussion on whether we should advertise Maximum Write
> Same Length for SCT Write Same, and the value we should advertise.
> (Didn't we come to an conclusion on th
On 23 August 2016 at 00:36, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
>> I am not sure about what you mean here. Rejecting SCSI Write Same
>> commands that has its "number of blocks" field set to a value higher
>> than the device's reported Maximum Write Same Length
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
> I am not sure about what you mean here. Rejecting SCSI Write Same
> commands that has its "number of blocks" field set to a value higher
> than the device's reported Maximum Write Same Length is only natural
> and mandated by SBC. We have no reason
I am not sure about what you mean here. Rejecting SCSI Write Same
commands that has its "number of blocks" field set to a value higher
than the device's reported Maximum Write Same Length is only natural
and mandated by SBC. We have no reason (even if it is practically not
a must) not to do it whil
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 03:43, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>>
>> Why would we enforce upper level limits on something that doesn't
>> have any?
>
> If we advertise a limit in our SATL, it makes sense that we should
> make sure the behaviour is consistent w
On 23 August 2016 at 03:43, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>>> + if (unmap) {
>>> + /* If trim is not enabled the cmd is invalid. */
>>> + if ((dev->horkage & ATA_HORKAGE_NOTRIM) ||
>>> + !ata_id_has_trim(dev->id)) {
>>> + fp = 1;
>>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Tom Yan wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 12:23, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
>> SATA drives may support write same via SCT. This is useful
>> for setting the drive contents to a specific pattern (0's).
>>
>> Translate a SCSI WRITE SAME 16 command to be either a DSM TRIM
>>
On 22 August 2016 at 12:23, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> SATA drives may support write same via SCT. This is useful
> for setting the drive contents to a specific pattern (0's).
>
> Translate a SCSI WRITE SAME 16 command to be either a DSM TRIM
> command or an SCT Write Same command.
>
> Based on the U
On 08/22/2016 06:23 AM, Shaun Tancheff wrote:
> SATA drives may support write same via SCT. This is useful
> for setting the drive contents to a specific pattern (0's).
>
> Translate a SCSI WRITE SAME 16 command to be either a DSM TRIM
> command or an SCT Write Same command.
>
> Based on the UNMA
SATA drives may support write same via SCT. This is useful
for setting the drive contents to a specific pattern (0's).
Translate a SCSI WRITE SAME 16 command to be either a DSM TRIM
command or an SCT Write Same command.
Based on the UNMAP flag:
- When set translate to DSM TRIM
- When not set
18 matches
Mail list logo
