On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:15:17 +0200 Richard Genoud <[email protected]> wrote: > 2012/7/4 Shmulik Ladkani <[email protected]>: > > + /* > > + * Calculate the actual number of PEBs currently needed to be > > reserved > > + * for future bad eraseblock handling. > > + */ > > + ubi->beb_rsvd_level = ubi->bad_peb_limit - ubi->bad_peb_count; > > + if (ubi->beb_rsvd_level < 0) { > > + ubi->beb_rsvd_level = 0; > > + ubi_warn("number of bad PEBs (%d) is above the expected > > limit " > > + "(%d), not reserving any PEBs for bad PEB > > handling, " > > + "will use available PEBs (if any)", > > + ubi->bad_peb_count, ubi->bad_peb_limit); > > + } > > } > is it ok for beb_rsvd_level to be in the range [0..x[ instead of [2..x[ ?
Yes, it is ok in my new scheme. It is even mandatory, otherwise more and more PEBs will attempt to be reserved for future bad PEB handling (as 'beb_rsvd_pebs' always wishes to reach 'beb_rsvd_level') even if passed the limit - this is exactly what I'd like to fix. Regards Shmulik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
