Tejun Heo wrote:
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?
..
Mmm.. the one Tomas Lund has is on what appears to be AHCI (ICH9R).
Tomas, if you move the "problem drive" to another port, does the error
follow the drive, or stay with the same port?
(Hopefully you can try that)
--
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
