On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 10:15:59 -0500
"Theodore Ts'o" [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 10:58:09PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:

quoted

quoted

I have a Crucial_CT256MX1 (i.e. MX100) and it does reliably zero.

make me concerned about this whitelist approach.

I think you need a manufacturer assertion that this is indeed
the design intent; you cannot be certain based on observation
from outside.

How is this different from a manufacturer assertion that they follow a
SCSI or ATA standard?  There have been cases in the distant past
(fortunately) of disk manufacturers that ignored a CACHE FLUSH command
just to get higher Winbench scores.  Does that mean we can't trust
them to do anything right?

At the time they never promised to honour cache flush. The reason it was
became mandatory in the specification was in part so that the vendors
could all force each other to play fair. If its "optional" then it's
tough..., if they say they meet the standard it's class action 8)

If this is a promise then it ought to be good 

James:  "USB devices tend to supply their own driver"

has not been true for some years now. Microsoft provide an in-box driver
and vendors have the choice of using that or certifying their own via
WHQL, which is a bit like choosing between free ice cream and banging
your head against a plank cover in nails.

Alan