Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection support

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...>
Cc: Elias Oltmanns <eo@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...>, <linux-ide@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 2:28 pm

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:00 +0200, Tejun Heo said:

Which is better, failing the write so the application *knows* there is a
problem, or letting the application proceed with a totally incorrect idea of
what the value is set to?

For instance, what happens if the program tries to set 100, it's silently
clamped to 10, and it then tries to set a timer for itself to '90% of the
value'?  It might be in for an unpleasant surprise when it finds out that
it's overshot by 81....
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 2/4] libata: Implement disk shock protection supp..., , (Thu Sep 11, 2:28 pm)