From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: Followup on patches as571 and as572 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:01:56 -0500 Message-ID: <1129305716.4824.15.camel@mulgrave> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:25999 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750774AbVJNQCI (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:02:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Stern , Jens Axboe Cc: SCSI development list On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 11:09 -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > I haven't heard anything back about these two patches: > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112801815229091&w=2 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-scsi&m=112801965207763&w=2 > > They were submitted a couple of weeks ago, and they don't appear in your > scsi-misc git repository. I was waiting for Jens to comment since he's supposed to be the sr maintainer. To me, the first looks fine. The second alters the behaviour of error completion. Previously we report the number of good bytes up to the first bad block in linux filesystem terms. Now we report it up to the first bad block in hardsect terms. I'm not sure if anything actually cares, but I don't really see a reason to change it. James