From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Erik Mouw Subject: Re: [RFC] PATCH to fix rescan_partitions to return errors properly - take 2 Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:53:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20061006125336.GA27183@harddisk-recovery.nl> References: <452307B4.3050006@in.ibm.com> <20061004130932.GC18800@harddisk-recovery.com> <4523E66B.5090604@in.ibm.com> <20061004170827.GE18800@harddisk-recovery.nl> <4523F16D.5060808@in.ibm.com> <20061005104018.GC7343@harddisk-recovery.nl> <45256BE2.5040702@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: lkml , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , andmike@us.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from dtp.xs4all.nl ([80.126.206.180]:2922 "HELO abra2.bitwizard.nl") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751360AbWJFMxn (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 08:53:43 -0400 To: Suzuki Kp Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45256BE2.5040702@in.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 01:32:34PM -0700, Suzuki Kp wrote: > Btw, do you think it is a good idea to let the other partition checkers > run, even if one of them has failed ? Yes, just let them run. Partition information doesn't need to be on the very first sector of the drive. If the first sector is bad and the partition table for your funky XYZ partition table format lives on the tenth sector, then a checker that checks the first sector would fail and prevent your checker from running. OTOH: having ten partition checkers check the same bad first sector doesn't really speed up the partion check process (for that reason we disable partition checking for drives we get for recovery). A way to solve that would be to keep a list of bad sectors: if the first checker finds a bad sector, it notes it down in the list so the next checker wouldn't have to try to read that particular sector. Maybe that's too much work to do in kernel and we'd better move the partition checking to userland. > Right now, the check_partition runs the partition checkers in a > sequential manner, until it finds a success or an error. I think it's best not to change the current behaviour and let all partition checkers run, even if one of them failed due to device errors. I wouldn't mind if the behaviour changed like you propose, though. Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands