On 2014/10/31 16:09, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Hujianyang, > > Am 31.10.2014 um 05:03 schrieb hujianyang: >> Hi Artem and Richard, >> >> We are using atomic operation, leb_change(), for master_node >> in ubifs-level. We use two lebs for master_node even if they >> are changed with atomic operation. >> >> I think volume_table and master_node play similar roles. Do >> you think changing VTBL record into one peb is OK? I just >> what to know if I missed something. Could you please take >> some time to explain that? > > I'm not sure if I correctly understand your question. > > If we use only one PEB for the VTBL existing UBI implementations > would break as they assume we have two. > > Thanks, > //richard > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ > >
This question is basing on your comment for this patch: """ we can guarantee that the first VTBL record is always correct and we don't really need the second one anymore. """ I think that means one PEB is enough in your considering. So I want to know if you are sure about this. Because we use two leb for master_node in ubifs-level. So maybe VTBL is like super_node, not master_node, right? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/