[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1170267198.3402.58.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:13:18 -0600
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>
Cc: Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ric Wheeler <ric@....com>,
"Eric D. Mudama" <edmudama@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, dougg@...que.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:57 -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> >> When libata reports a MEDIUM_ERROR to us, we *know* it's non-recoverable,
> >> as the drive itself has already done internal retries (libata uses the
> >> "with retry" ATA opcodes for this).
> >
> > This depends on the firmware. Some of the "raid firmware" drives don't
> > appear to do retries in firmware.
>
> One way to tell if this is true, is simply to time how long
> the failed operation takes. If the drive truly does not do retries,
> then the media error should be reported more or less instantly
> (assuming drive was already spun up).
Well, the simpler way (and one we have a hope of implementing) is to
examine the ASC/ASCQ codes to see if the error is genuinely unretryable.
I seem to have dropped the ball on this one in that the scsi_error.c
pieces of this patch
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=116485834119885
I thought I'd applied. Apparently I didn't, so I'll go back and put
them in.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists