Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Gabor Gombas
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008 - 7:28 am

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 04:19:26PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:


A system lockup may be an acceptable compromise if that saves the
hardware. Maybe the kernel should explicitely panic unless the
controller/drive is known to be able to recover.

Gabor

-- 
     ---------------------------------------------------------
     MTA SZTAKI Computer and Automation Research Institute
                Hungarian Academy of Sciences
     ---------------------------------------------------------
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] Disk shock protection in GNU/Linux, Elias Oltmanns, (Fri Jul 25, 11:20 pm)
[PATCH 2/5] Introduce ata_id_has_unload(), Elias Oltmanns, (Fri Jul 25, 11:24 pm)
[PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection support, Elias Oltmanns, (Fri Jul 25, 11:25 pm)
[PATCH 4/5] ide: Implement disk shock protection support, Elias Oltmanns, (Fri Jul 25, 11:27 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/5] Introduce ata_id_has_unload(), Alan Cox, (Sat Jul 26, 9:01 am)
Re: [PATCH 3/5] libata: Implement disk shock protection su ..., Gabor Gombas, (Mon Aug 4, 7:28 am)