From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s ponnusa Subject: Re: Linux kernel - Libata bad block error handling to user mode program Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:44:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20100303224245.ae8d1f7a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <87f94c371003040617t4a4fcd0dt1c9fc0f50e6002c4@mail.gmail.com> <4B8FC6AC.4060801@teksavvy.com> <87f94c371003111029s7c7daebgf691ab11e6bdda25@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:57807 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759381Ab0CMWoH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:44:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87f94c371003111029s7c7daebgf691ab11e6bdda25@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Freemyer Cc: Mark Lord , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , linux-mm@kvack.org Had some issues with the libata in 2.6.27 kernel's libata code, but believe the issues were fixed in the subsequent versions. Atleast one prominent issue was with a Western Digital HDD of 40 GB size. The manufacturer specific LBA was 78125000 and was reported as correctly in Win32 and DOS applications. But the 2.6.27 kernel was reporting ~40000 sectors more. But the problem dissappeared with the 2.6.3x kernel and I did not bother to check the patches due to lack of time. But still, the write's failure is not being seen by the application. I can understand the fact of not checking the media errors during the write operation, and had posted a request for a quick suggestions of the locations which needs to be changed / checked for the return value. ( Should it be handled at the vfs or at the libata code?). Will surely update the testing results with the new kernel (Well, not exactly as I am not using the latest version though! Currently trying with 2.6.31). Thank you all for suggestions. - SP On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote: >> >> But really.. isn't "hdparm --security-erase NULL /dev/sdX" good enou= gh ??? >> > > This thread seems to have died off. =A0If there is a real problem, I > hope it picks back up. > > Mark, as to your question the few times I've tried that the bios on > the test machine blocked the command. =A0So it may have some specific > utility, but it's a not a generic solution in my mind. > > Greg >