On 12-05-01 05:58 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 04:27:00PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >> MMmm.. even that isn't good enough, because the first ATA_QCFLAG_IO test >> bypasses the rest of that logic and triggers unconditional retries. Ugh. > > Hmmm... the unconditional retry on ATA_QCFLAG_IO is intenttional so > that known good requests from FS are guaranteed to be retried no > matter how whacky the underlying device is. I'm not sure whether that > was a good decision tho. Maybe we should trust the hardware a bit > more. So, I'm not necessarily against changing it. With multi-terabyte drives being commonplace now, bad sectors seem to be a more frequent occurrence than I can remember from the past. And when libata stumbles across a bad sector, it literally hangs the machine for _minutes_ doing retries. I have never seen a retry make any difference whatsoever on a bad sector read. New, old, or ancient hardware. Cheers -- 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
