> On 23 Apr 2017, at 19.59, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>
> On 04/22/2017 11:31 AM, Javier González wrote:
>>> On 22 Apr 2017, at 11.22, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/22/2017 01:32 AM, Javier González wrote:
When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
bl
On 04/22/2017 11:31 AM, Javier González wrote:
On 22 Apr 2017, at 11.22, Matias Bjørling wrote:
On 04/22/2017 01:32 AM, Javier González wrote:
When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
blocks in the line was not updated, which could cause an infinite loop
on th
> On 22 Apr 2017, at 11.22, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>
> On 04/22/2017 01:32 AM, Javier González wrote:
>> When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
>> blocks in the line was not updated, which could cause an infinite loop
>> on the erase path.
>>
>> Fix this atomic
On 04/22/2017 01:32 AM, Javier González wrote:
When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
blocks in the line was not updated, which could cause an infinite loop
on the erase path.
Fix this atomic counter and, in order to avoid taking an irq lock on the
interrupt con
When block erases fail, these blocks are marked bad. The number of valid
blocks in the line was not updated, which could cause an infinite loop
on the erase path.
Fix this atomic counter and, in order to avoid taking an irq lock on the
interrupt context, make the erase counters atomic too.
Also,