Mark Lord wrote:
The response to an unrecoverable sector shouldn't be 51/04 if the
flush fails, it should be 51/10 or 51/40.
51/04 would be the response if the FLUSH CACHE command was issued when
there were still outstanding NCQ commands active.
..
Tejun: I see we have another thread as well with FLUSH errors.
I really doubt that these are bad drives.
There's very likely a bug in libata / LLD there someplace.
Possibly. The only thing I can think of which can screw FLUSH is
issuing it when NCQ phase is still in progress as was in the case for
ADMA. FLUSH being a non-data command, it's pretty difficult to get it
wrong otherwise. The thing is that sata_sil24 does its own command
sequencing and even if libata slips there a bit, the silicon won't issue
FLUSH if NCQ is in progress, so I'm a bit skeptical. Any other ideas?
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
