James Bottomley wrote:
Hmm, didn't see the email ... but I'm probably not cc'd on all the
thread. However ... it isn't that you couldn't do it ... it's that you
don't want to do it because it's faster to violate the spec ... like all
those nice ATA devices that lie about having a cache and then let you
power down with uncommitted data still in it ... they work much faster
for HDIO tests ... and who ever switches their box off?
James,
I didn't do it, I don't know who did it, but sure we can try and track
them down and line them up outside .....
Point is that this is how the chips were done and they are out there in
numbers. It makes things a *lot* faster to violate the spec in such a
system, yes it sucks, but thats how things are. It wouldn't be the first
time someone violated the PCI spec in their implementation and I am
pretty sure it won't be the last.
Cheers,
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
