Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 20:39:18 +1000 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: jfarmer@sabre.goldsword.com, mdean@best.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, jfarmer@goldsword.com Subject: Re: bad144 Message-ID: <199709281039.UAA15728@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I am not really worried what bad144 thinks, I worried that if it returns
>errors so will freebsd in general since it does run under freebsd and uses
>freebsd system calls I assume.
It seems to be just another application bug. Untested fix:
diff -c2 bad144.c~ bad144.c
*** bad144.c~ Fri Sep 5 13:13:13 1997
--- bad144.c Fri Sep 5 13:13:23 1997
***************
*** 145,149 ****
}
! lseek(f, curr_sec * ss, L_SET);
if ((n = read(f, buf, ss)) != ss) {
--- 145,149 ----
}
! lseek(f, (off_t)ss * curr_sec, SEEK_SET);
if ((n = read(f, buf, ss)) != ss) {
>> Why use bad144 at all? It's a relic left over from the VAX/PDP-11 days...
>> Search the archives, this has come up several times. It the drive checks
>> good with the vendors utilities (for IDE and SCSI) then it's good.
>>
>> bad144 had it's day when drives _didn't_ do automatic bad block
>> replacement.
>>
>> John (Yes, I'm old enought to have had to deal with such beasts.
>> My first Unix box was a PDP-11/34 with Version 6.... And
>> _big_ RK-05 drives, all of 2.5mb each...)
For FreeBSD, bad144 should only be necessary for MFM and ESDI drives.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709281039.UAA15728>