From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: Windows Bug Check 0x101 issue Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:30:46 +0000 Message-ID: <20080327163046.7984cf3f@core> References: <7k4pawfnxs.fsf@pingu.sky.yk.fujitsu.co.jp> <7k1w5zf50j.fsf@pingu.sky.yk.fujitsu.co.jp> <18408.57824.846687.465435@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080325175718.GT4411@implementation.uk.xensource.com> <7ky786dkup.fsf@pingu.sky.yk.fujitsu.co.jp> <18410.9596.488204.878357@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <7ktziseo9r.fsf@pingu.sky.yk.fujitsu.co.jp> <20080327090831.2a9f9b05@core> <18411.52353.526441.433440@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18411.52353.526441.433440@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Keir Fraser , Kouya Shimura , Samuel Thibault List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > having decided to violate it, perhaps the right answer is to make the > disk simply vanish: ignore all future command writes, zero all of the > registers that the host is attempting to read, not issue an interrupt, > and somehow discard the responses from any overlapped IO which is in > flight. I think it is safest - and if the underlying storage fails something bad has happened and anything else we do would make it worse > > Is that what you meant by `offline the virtual device' ? Just leave the busy bit set forever, the host will get fed up of waiting, reset, rinse repeat a few times and (except for older Linux) then offline the device. Older Linux (ie drivers/ide) has problems coping with failed drives so will carry on spewing but limp along ok. Alan