Russell King wrote:
>
>I'd rather not. The problem is that we have a host (thanks Intel)
>which is unable to report how many bytes were transferred before an
>error occurs. My fear is that doing anything other than sector by
>sector write will lead to corruption should an error occur.
>
>However, I've no way to induce such an error, so I can only base
>this on theory.
>
>It may work perfectly for the case when everything's operating
>correctly, but I suspect if you're going to do multi-sector writes,
>it'll all fall apart on the first error, especially on this host.
>
>
>
We had this discussion on LKML and Alan Cox' comment on it was that a
solution like this would be acceptable, where we try and shove
everything out first and then fall back on sector-by-sector to determine
where an error occurs. This will only break if the problematic sector
keeps shifting around, but at that point the card is probably toast
anyway (if the thing keeps moving how can you bad block it?).
Rgds
Pierre
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |