Am 08.12.2014 um 14:00 schrieb Tanya Brokhman: >>>>> Why do you fail the whole function (ubi_wl_get_peb) if fastmap update >>>>> failed? Its possible that the fm_pools were refilled correctly, and the >>>>> actual fastmap_write failed, so >>>>> there >>>>> is nothing preventing the user to get peb allocated and continue working. >>>>> You invalidate the fastmap, so if powercut occurs a full scan will be >>>>> performed. So its possible to >>>>> allocate from fm_pools (although fastmap is not valid on disc) and try >>>>> writing fastmap again when the pools filled up. >>>>> I'm for the ubi_msg but against "return -ENOSPC;" >>>> >>>> Maybe the case you've described is powercut safe, but there can be other >>>> unsafe cases. >>>> Let's stay on the safe side and be paranoid, it does not hurt. >>>> If fastmap has proven stable we can start with tricky optimizations. >>> >>> I'm sorry that I'm being petty here but the commit msg states that you >>> "notify the user in case of update fastamap failure". It says nothing about >>> you failing ubi_wl_get_peb as >>> well. And this is a major change. At least divide this into 2 patches (so I >>> can disagree to the function failing and agree to the msg to user :) ) >> >> With user I meant users of that function. > > I still don't like it. > Leaving this one for Artem... sorry
BTW: With my latest patch applied "[PATCH] UBI: Fastmap: Fix possible fastmap inconsistency" your assumption that we can have the pools refilled in case if an ubi_update_fastmap() error is no longer correct. Before my patch ubi_update_fastmap() the pools have been refilled much too early, this is an bug and got fixed. Thanks, //richard -- 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/
