[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IDE DMA errors, massive disk corruption: Why? Fixed Yet? Whynot re-do failed op?
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel B. wrote:
> > If the kernel starts a write command for block 993, wouldn't it wait
> > for a DMA interrupt signalling that the drive has received and accepted
> > the command before the kernel starts the write command for block 10934?
> With command queueing, no, it would not wait.

Other than the write-back caching, it's not an open-loop system,
right? Regardless of how commands are batched or queued, isn't there
some acknowledgment back from the drive that some batch of commands
(or some command, or some part of some command) was completed?

Surely the kernel checks for such acknowledgments, right?

DMA-complete interrupts are probably how some of those acknowledgments
are communicated, right?

So if the kernel doesn't get an expected DMA interrupt, it should
know that some command(/batch/part) wasn't acknowledged successfully,
right? And surely it can tell _which_ command/batch/part wasn't
acknowledged (if multiple ones can be outstanding), right?

So if some command/batch/etc. wasn't acknowledged, why can't the
kernel retry the command/batch/etc.?

> > If it timed out waiting for that interrupt, can't it re-issue the
> > write for block 993 before proceeding?
> Assuming a large amount of sanity in your OS driver... certainly.

Given the serious of disk data corruption, why isn't the Linux kernel
more reliable here? Hasn't this family of IDE problems been around
for a couple of years now?

Daniel Barclay
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 13:49    [W:0.054 / U:11.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site