Re: libata error handling

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2007-01-07T20:38:11Z

On 1/7/07, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 20:28 +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On 1/6/07, Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 13:01 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 12:21 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > > > >> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> > > > >>> i have heard that libata has much better error handling (this is what
> > > > >>> made me try it), and from initial observations, that appears to be very
> > > > >>> true, however, im wondering, is there something i can do to get
> > > > >>> extremely verbose information from libata? for example if it corrects
> > > > >>> errors? cause i'd really like to know if it still happens, and if i
> > > > >>> perhaps get corruption as before, even though not severe.
> > > > >> Any errors, timeouts or retries would be showing up in dmesg..
> > > > > how sure can i be of this? is it 100% sure that i have not encountered
> > > > > this error then?
> > > >
> > > > Pretty sure, I'm quite certain libata never does any silent error recovery..
> >
> > AFAIR this is true
> > (at least it was last time that I've looked at libata eh code)
> >
> > > okay, i suppose i face two possibilities then:
> > > 1: libata drivers are simply better, and the error does not occur
> > > because of driver bugs in the old ide drivers
> >
> > very likely however pdc202xx_new bugs should be fixed in 2.6.20-rc3
> > (as it contains a lot of bugfixes for this driver from Sergei Shtylyov)
> these fixes are also in the libata driver?

some were backported directly from libata driver and few were
pdc202xx_new specific so probably pata_pdc2027x is also fine

> > > 2: it hasnt happened to me on libata yet (though this is also abit
> > > weird, as it has now ran far longer than were previously required to hit
> > > the errors)