Re: [PATCH] scsi_lib.c: continue after MEDIUM_ERROR

[James Bottomley]

On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 14:42 +0000, Alan wrote:
> > The interesting point of this question is about the typically pattern of 
> > IO errors. On a read, it is safe to assume that you will have issues 
> > with some bounded numbers of adjacent sectors.
> 
> Which in theory you can get by asking the drive for the real sector size
> from the ATA7 info. (We ought to dig this out more as its relevant for
> partition layout too).
> 
> > I really like the idea of being able to set this kind of policy on a per 
> > drive instance since what you want here will change depending on what 
> > your system requirements are, what the system is trying to do (i.e., 
> > when trying to recover a failing but not dead yet disk, IO errors should 
> > be as quick as possible and we should choose an IO scheduler that does 
> > not combine IO's).
> 
> That seems to be arguing for a bounded "live" time including retry run
> time for a command. That's also more intuitive for real time work and for
> end user setup. "Either work or fail within n seconds"

Actually, then I think perhaps we use the allowed retries for this ...

So you would fail a single sector and count it against the retries.
When you've done this allowed retries times, you fail the rest of the
request.

James


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/