[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Vipin Malik wrote:
> >Compare that with the probability that the sky will fall on your head
> >anyway. Do we still care?
> If I understand you correctly, you are arguing the case that reading
> the same "questionable" sector twice is good enough even if you are
> paranoid, and that we will catch at least 1 flipped bit, and the
> probability of missing that is so low that we probably don't care for
> that case.
Basically, yes. It's _vaguely_ feasible that the sector was 99.9999%
through the erase, and there are only one or two bits which only have
"half an electron". In that case, perhaps we wouldn't catch them, and we'd
later end up with single-bit errors in a couple of nodes, which we ought
to be able to deal with _anyway_. We should probably be reading back nodes
after write and checking the data were written properly anyway.
> If that is what you are saying, then I agree with it, and cast my vote
> in favor.
For now, until/unless someone either shows that the problem is likely to
arise, or comes up with a more acceptable workaround than just re-erasing
all blocks on reboot. Is there something in the status bits that can be
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe jffs-dev" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org