From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752053Ab3FWWfs (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:35:48 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38696 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751606Ab3FWWfq (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:35:46 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=LzfyP7 hSJXENmpGfn/ylD6I/+pn8xXOqNR4rQ4b1OwtdsvkjxrfCclYzFuha1v9g73E3lc OCRcAQJvuSyIlZS8VPi8rIr9gKlZ6w6MJjiGCMkhBHhEnWGTILzQOk455/q+r65q 6f8wmsOBgNK3zpmVELPBnN8Z8te54qhgeeQ0w= Message-ID: <51C77840.2060800@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:35:44 -0400 From: Mark Lord User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: Marcus Overhagen , kernel list , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org Subject: Re: SATA hdd refuses to reallocate a sector? References: <20130623101940.GA4448@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <20130623112133.GA4837@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <20130623190003.GA6714@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> <51C76858.4060906@pobox.com> <20130623215100.GA7414@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20130623215100.GA7414@amd.pavel.ucw.cz> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3E94C68C-DC55-11E2-8424-D5430E5B5709-82205200!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13-06-23 05:51 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2013-06-23 17:27:52, Mark Lord wrote: > >> For all existing drives out there, that's a 512 byte unit. > > I guessed so. (It would be good to actually document it, as well as > documenting exactly why it is dangerous. Is it okay to send patches?) Absolutely. Please, even! > Well, I definitely have more than one bad sector, but I did try to > read exactly the same sector and it failed. See below. .. read failed. write works. read failed. write works. read works. dd failed. read works. read works. read failed. Odd. The drive must be furiously reshuffling sectors or something, or more likely pushing a piece of dirt around scuffing up more bits. hdparm generally talks directly to a drive, not through the block or filesystem layers. So the block, filesystem, and page-cache stuff don't know anything about --read-sector and --write-sector. Cheers -- Mark Lord Real-Time Remedies Inc. mlord@pobox.com