On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Hi Alen
>
> Yes, I have not inspected sr.c very carefully, you are absolutely right.
> Could you submit a unified patch for sd, sr and scsi.c I have hit this
> bug 2 in my error injection tests. I was doing sg_chaining tests and now
> with the possibly v
On Tue, Dec 04 2007 at 20:03 +0200, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>
>> perhaps below hunk should be added to your patch.
>
> It looks like a good idea.
>
>> Was it decided when this data corruption bugfix is
>> merged.
>
> I don't know -- I have
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> perhaps below hunk should be added to your patch.
It looks like a good idea.
> Was it decided when this data corruption bugfix is
> merged.
I don't know -- I haven't heard anything back from James.
> Also in sr.c. It does the range check but it might
>
On Mon, Nov 26 2007 at 17:35 +0200, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not all devices correctly report the error-causing LBA in the
> Information field of their sense data -- even when they set the Valid
> bit. This patch (as1019) makes sd much more cautious about accepting
> the reported LB
On Mon, Nov 26 2007 at 17:35 +0200, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not all devices correctly report the error-causing LBA in the
> Information field of their sense data -- even when they set the Valid
> bit. This patch (as1019) makes sd much more cautious about accepting
> the reported LB
Not all devices correctly report the error-causing LBA in the
Information field of their sense data -- even when they set the Valid
bit. This patch (as1019) makes sd much more cautious about accepting
the reported LBA. If the value isn't within the range of blocks
accessed during the I/O operatio
6 matches
Mail list logo
