From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:34:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:34:12 -0400 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.24]:21996 "EHLO mail.unthought.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:34:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:39:24 +0200 From: Jakob Oestergaard To: Oleg Drokin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hans Reiser Subject: Re: ReiserFS buglet Message-ID: <20020924103923.GI2442@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Oestergaard , Oleg Drokin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hans Reiser References: <20020924072455.GE2442@unthought.net> <20020924132110.A22362@namesys.com> <20020924092720.GF2442@unthought.net> <20020924134816.A23185@namesys.com> <20020924100338.GH2442@unthought.net> <20020924142521.C23185@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20020924142521.C23185@namesys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 , 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}...............: