On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > I had some strange fs corruption, and andi suggested that it probably
> > > is TASKFILE-related. Perhaps this is good idea?
> >
> > Idea is good.
> >
> > Did corruption go away after disabling taskfile?
>
> Not sure, it took week for corruption to creep in, and it might have
> been loop-related or swsusp-related. I'm not at all sure it was
> TASKFILE, but I'm turning it off for now.
I doubt it was taskfile, your /dev/hda is using UDMA so taskfile's impact
is minimal. I've checked this codepath once again today and can't
see anything which has (possibly) caused Andi's problems.
I think if it is taskfile related it might be caused by some timing issues
(races) and should be visible (less frequently) with non-taskfile code too
and this is not happening.
If you are not sure if it was taskfile why do you want to warn about it?
[ Because Andi is spreading FUD about taskfile? ;-) ]
> At least it is strange to have option that says both "experimental"
> and "it is safe to say Y". What are those "most cases"?
Using (U)DMA should be 100% safe, using single-sector PIO should
also be safe, using multi-sector PIO might be less safe...
-- Bartlomiej- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:47 EST