Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [Q] FAT driver enhancement | From | OGAWA Hirofumi <> | Date | Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:45:21 +0900 |
| |
Jos Hulzink <josh@stack.nl> writes:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > > > Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> writes: > > > > > > I mean I/O error, not data damage. > > > > > > It is the block layer's responsibility to retry such soft errors and recover. > > > > Yes. > > But what about the data damage errors ? > > > > Probably the best you can do, is retry the read a few times if there > > > is an error reported, and then fail if it persists. > > > > Umm, there is a `copy of FAT table' for this kind of error. If the I/O > > error occurs, the FAT driver should use the other FAT table. > > How should the FAT driver know that the first FAT is bad if it doesn't > scan the FAT ? You don't want the second FAT to be used, you want the > mount to fail, and fsck.xxx to fix the mess. Who tells you that the second > copy of the FAT is the correct one, and not the first ?
FAT16/FAT32 use the second entry of FAT table for data damage. The 1 bit of second entry is a clean/dirty unmount flag.
But, it's not perfect. Furthermore, currently not implemented. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |