Gábor KATONA wrote:
I guess you mean "marking differently blocks skipped after finding a
slow area from those skipped after finding an unreadable area". This
could be useful, but is a major change to the current algorithm.
Yes, this is what I mean. Is it really a major change?
Yes, among other things the new block type should have to be accounted
for through all the code and documentation. I always try to avoid the
creation of new block types if possible.
Another way of achieving our goal (to try again slow areas, but leave
out bad areas) could be to skip ahead when encountering a slow area but
leaving the skipped area marked as '?', and repeating the first pass
until all blocks have been tried. After all, slow areas are good areas,
so this seems a reasonable thing to do.
I'll release in a few days a new version with this implemented.
Regards,
Antonio.
_______________________________________________
Bug-ddrescue mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
