From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:28:47 -0400 Message-ID: <25227.1221157727@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> References: <87wshzplvk.fsf@denkblock.local> <20080829211345.4355.89284.stgit@denkblock.local> <48B913E6.1000104@gmail.com> <87k5dym5t9.fsf@denkblock.local> <48BA638B.2030001@gmail.com> <87ej45mlp3.fsf@denkblock.local> <48BA969C.4060207@gmail.com> <87abetmaap.fsf@denkblock.local> <48BBA8D1.8020604@gmail.com> <87myirly1p.fsf@denkblock.local> <48BC1BB8.2030007@gmail.com> <87fxoh0yil.fsf@denkblock.local> <48BFA528.2040305@gmail.com> <87ej3zrf3o.fsf@denkblock.local> <48C0F2F8.1040308@gmail.com> <87ej3snm3s.fsf@denkblock.local> <48C7DC55.30002@gmail.com> <8763p3ol55.fsf@denkblock.local> <48C82CB1.2070308@gmail.com> <871vzrogpz.fsf@denkblock.local> <48C850AA.2030409@gmail.com> <87k5diq35g.fsf@denkblock.local> <48C91458.7090503@gmail.com> <48C9168C.4090101@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1221157727_3036P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:38985 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751167AbYIKS3t (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:29:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0200." <48C9168C.4090101@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: Elias Oltmanns , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Jeff Garzik , Randy Dunlap , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1221157727_3036P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0200, Tejun Heo said: > Ah.. just one more thing. > > I think it would be easier on the application if the written timeout > value is cropped if it's over the maximum instead of failing the > write. Which is better, failing the write so the application *knows* there is a problem, or letting the application proceed with a totally incorrect idea of what the value is set to? For instance, what happens if the program tries to set 100, it's silently clamped to 10, and it then tries to set a timer for itself to '90% of the value'? It might be in for an unpleasant surprise when it finds out that it's overshot by 81.... --==_Exmh_1221157727_3036P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFIyWNfcC3lWbTT17ARAqTZAKCdEfSXq66RnOT1tp9K+i/t3W0zAwCfbPLd OobtSFbKqKU1U9DBKFYRQbc= =NPqv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1221157727_3036P--