On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 12:43 -0600, Vishal Verma 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.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. I do not have a strong opinion and am fine with either way Vishal proposed here. I just did not feel right to clear with -l 0. -Toshi _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
