Re: [Xen-devel] Windows Bug Check 0x101 issue

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan Cox writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Windows Bug Check 0x101 issue"):
> Flush errors are a bit hard to emulate. On a flush failing you have to
> provide back an error state indicating the LBA block number (LBA28 or
> LBA48 according to which flush command) of the specific failing block.
> Calling the cache flush again restarts the flushing process having
> dropped that block.

Hrm.  I think it would be better to return an endless sequence of
errors than to return no error at all.  Since we don't know which
block failed, we could report an error flushing block 0, and then an
error flushing block 1, and so on ?

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel