From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Small Subject: Re: Corrupt data - RAID sata_sil 3114 chip Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:25:18 +0000 Message-ID: <4B701ECE.5070101@buttersideup.com> References: <4B630914.9010503@fs.ei.tum.de> <4B6338E2.1040507@gmail.com> <4B6CE7E0.1060209@kernel.org> <4B6D87DF.6030305@buttersideup.com> <4B6EE5D4.1010907@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from relay1.allsecurenet.com ([63.246.152.102]:33647 "EHLO relay1.allsecurenet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751622Ab0BHO0j (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:26:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B6EE5D4.1010907@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Robert Hancock Cc: Tejun Heo , "Ulli.Brennenstuhl" , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Robert Hancock wrote: > It's something to check, yes. It would be somewhat surprising if that > were occurring - detected PCI parity errors should cause a target > abort and cause a transfer failure, not silent data corruption. But > again, on an old VIA chipset, for this to be handled improperly > wouldn't be shocking :-) I believe that this is only the case if the motherboard BIOS sets bit 6 in the Control register to tell the device to respond to parity errors. Most of the "server" motherboards I've seen do. None of the non-server motherboards that I've just looked at do.... The Status flag "should" still work whether the "parity error response" flag is set, or not... Cheers, Tim.