On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Vishal Verma <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/02, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 09:18 -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >> > > +-l:: >> > > > +--len:: >> > > > +The number of badblocks to clear in size of 512 bytes >> > > > increments. The >> > > > +length must fit within the badblocks range. If the length >> > > > exceeds the >> > > > +badblock range or is 0, the command will fail. >> > > >> > > Actually, I am seeing '-l 0' works just like '-l 1'. >> > >> > Oh now I remembered that Vishal requested that no length does 1 block >> > clear. Do you want me to correct documentation or behavior? >> >> What is the reason behind of his request? > > Ah, so my intention/reasoning was if someone does a simple: > ndctl clear-error -s 'X' > without providing a -l argument, it should dimply clear that one block. > However I wouldn't think -l0 should clear one block, we should either > error out, or treat it as a dry-run (perhaps this could be an indirect > way to check if a certain block is in the badblocks list?) > > Anyway, I'm not too attached to the "should work without providing a -l" > thing, and we can make -l mandatory again if that makes most sense.
I like that no "-l" option is equivalent to "-l 1". "-l 0" should be an error. I don't think we need a test or dry-run option if we just have an interface to list all the error offsets relative to the given device. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
