On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:45:12PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > >We handle TASK ABORTED as well as we can (by failing it). For better > >handling set TAS=0 and we'll handle the individual cases according to > >the sense codes. > > So, should I consider your words as you think that it's perfectly fine > to corrupt file system for devices with TAS=1? Absolutely legal devices, > repeat. Hence, in your opinion, no further investigation should be done? I don't know how you manage to read his words this way. I understand him to mean that the SCSI subsystem is doing the best in can under the somewhat misconfigured circumstances, and the problem lies in the FS not handling errors correctly. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
