Re: ReiserFS buglet

[Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 02:25:21PM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:03:38PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> 
> > It's a question of which errors one wishes to handle, and which you
> > simply choose to ignore.
> 
> Yes, that's true. Reiserfs chose to not handle any HW errors, this is even
> written somewhere in our FAQ.

Fair enough.

...
> Ok, I did.
> You math was wrong, you forgot to account that your number should be divided
> by 128, not 512, since integer itself is 4 bytes long on x86.
> (See message from Itai Nahshon <nahshon@actcom.co.il>, August 7th
> Message-Id: <200208071443.30551.nahshon@actcom.co.il> if you missed that originally.)

Darn !

Thanks for pointing that one out - I missed it.

And you (well nahson@atcom.co.il) is right and I am wrong.

...
> Probably I mssed that part of converstion, then.
> As I see the IDE thing, you tell the hardware that you want to write some amount
> of _sectors_ to the hard drive, and then feed the controller with necessary
> amount of data. If it writes these sectors from the start of the data flow,
> what will it do on data transefer timeout?
> So I still think that data is written on disk in 512 bytes atomic blocks
> until I see IDE device that does otherwise (and then I will probably
> dig some IDE datasheet and find out they are violating some spec ;) )

That would be really interesting.

I mean, my point still stands even though my proof was wrong, unless
someone can come up with a "proof" (a spec would be close enough) that
writes must be 512 bytes.

Thanks,   :)

-- 
................................................................
:   jakob@unthought.net   : And I see the elder races,         :
:.........................: putrid forms of man                :
:   Jakob Østergaard      : See him rise and claim the earth,  :
:        OZ9ABN           : his downfall is at hand.           :
:.........................:............{Konkhra}...............: