Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+
From: Erik Slagter (erik_at_slagter.name)
Date: 06/27/05
- Previous message: Karel Kulhavy: "[bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org: [Bug 93671] mount uses wrong default umask for fat filesystem]"
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Next in thread: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Reply: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:11:36 +0200
On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 18:59 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2005-06-25 at 09:35, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> > > BTW2 could it be that somewhere a timeout has been lowered in recent
> > > kernels? That must have been pre-2.6.11 then.
>
> Timeouts have not changed or have increased in fact.
Never mind, the offending harddisk has ceased to be yesterday, it is no
more.
What really bothers me, though, is that until the very last moment it
was alive, it didn't report any smart error, nor did any self test fail.
I guess IBM is to blame here :-(
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Karel Kulhavy: "[bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org: [Bug 93671] mount uses wrong default umask for fat filesystem]"
- In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Next in thread: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Reply: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Promise ATA/133 Errors With 2.6.10+"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|