From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263453AbTJQNEf (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263456AbTJQNEf (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:35 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:11027 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263453AbTJQNEd (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:04:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:04:28 +0100 From: Russell King To: Norman Diamond Cc: Hans Reiser , Wes Janzen , Rogier Wolff , John Bradford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nikita@namesys.com, Pavel Machek Subject: Re: Blockbusting news, this is important (Re: Why are bad disk sectors numbered strangely, and what happens to them?) Message-ID: <20031017140428.B2415@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Norman Diamond , Hans Reiser , Wes Janzen , Rogier Wolff , John Bradford , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nikita@namesys.com, Pavel Machek References: <32a101c3916c$e282e330$5cee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60> <200310131014.h9DAEwY3000241@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> <33a201c39174$2b936660$5cee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60> <20031014064925.GA12342@bitwizard.nl> <3F8BA037.9000705@sbcglobal.net> <3F8BBC08.6030901@namesys.com> <11bf01c39492$bc5307c0$3eee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60> <3F8FBADE.7020107@namesys.com> <126d01c3949f$91bdecc0$3eee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <126d01c3949f$91bdecc0$3eee4ca5@DIAMONDLX60>; from ndiamond@wta.att.ne.jp on Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:11:42PM +0900 X-Message-Flag: Your copy of Microsoft Outlook is vulnerable to viruses. See www.mutt.org for more details. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 08:11:42PM +0900, Norman Diamond wrote: > Russell King replied to me: > > > When a drive tries to read a block, if it detects errors, it retries up > > > to 255 times. If a retry succeeds then the block gets reallocated. IF > > > 255 RETRIES FAIL THEN THE BLOCK DOES NOT GET REALLOCATED. > > > > This is perfectly reasonable. If the drive can't recover your old data > > to reallocate it to a new block, then leaving the error present until you > > write new data to that bad block is the correct thing to do. Why the F**K are you replying to me publically when I sent my reply in private? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core