Re: Driver retries disk errors.

[Bill Davidsen]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Alan Cox wrote:

> On Mer, 2004-09-01 at 16:18, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > If would probably be good to retry "read what you were asked, nothing 
> > more" on error, to avoid passing back errors caused by readahead. I 
> > suspect this would avoid some issues reading data off CD as well, where 
> > one software can read clean and another ends with a short image and error.
> 
> Sure but as I understand the block layer currently (and I may be missing
> something in the 2.6 code) I can't do that from a driver.
> 
Sorry, that was unclear. I was speaking of a general approach rather than
what would be done in the driver. Clearly that's best done at a higher
level. Drivers should not be making policy decisions of that type, but I
don't think it's good to return a read error caused by data the program
didn't request (ie. readahead).

Unless S.M.A.R.T is lying, that happens so seldom on disk that the
overhead of a retry doesn't matter. And on CD it makes things work where
currently they fail.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/