[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IDE/ATAPI in 2.5

>From Wed Jul 17 15:37:18 2002

>> >Error handling is more than local. Some errors, you are correct, can only be
>> >handled at the SCSI layer. However, a large class of drivers (Think
>> >multi-path or software raid) want the ability to direct how SCSI handles
>> >errors themselves. It is unacceptable to have SCSI all on its own retry a
>> >medium error command x times, taking minutes before the upper layers become
>> >aware anything went wrong.
>> It looks like you have the wrong ideas about software raid. If you have
>> software raid, you will stack a SW raid driver just on top of the disk
>> drivers that handle the access to the real drives. The real drives first
>> do own error handling and if they cannot correct errors, the error is
>> handled inside the raid layer.

>Did you even read what James wrote ?

>When one of the disks in a RAID array develops a bad block
>it shouldn't stall the box for minutes when the error can
>be handled by simply doing the IO from other disks instead.

Is there any problem with using a ioctl() from upper layer kernel to the low
level drivers (living under the SW raid) to reduce the number of retries to a
reasonable value in this case?

The main design goal for UNIX as to keep it simple. There is no need for a
complex cross layer error control.

Jörg (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.037 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site